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

  1.  
    Posted By: maryyugo
    But what is driving the motor?
    Magnetic "energy"!
    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!"


    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?
  2.  
    Posted By: Knuckles OToole
    But what is driving the motor?


    Well, try to look at one part of the motion only, i.e. a quarter of the circle. The core of the toroids are made of ferrite material, that is a ferromagnetic powder pressed into the form of a ring. This ferromagnetic material attracts the magnet and as a result the rotor with the magnet begins to move. Shortly after the magnet passes the toroid, the current runs through the coil and 'bends' the field lines to the inside of the toroid. That makes, as even Steorn says, the core some kind of 'invisible' for the magnet (Steorn says, it 'hides' the ferrit from the magnet).
    In this way the wheel can spin further without being pulled back to ferrit core.
    That's all true up to that point. But it needs energy to bend the field lines, to magnetise the core, to build an electromagnetic field in the coil. There just is no gain in energy.
    •  
      CommentAuthorcouldbe
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2009
     
    Posted By: overconfident
    Posted By: maryyugo
    But what is driving the motor?
    Magnetic "energy"!
    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!"


    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?
    I thought I heard Sean say it was induction.
  3.  
    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.
    •  
      CommentAuthorcouldbe
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2009
     
    Posted By: hairykrishna
    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.
    A generator using rotor kinetic energy is supposedly charging the battery. Does that make the energy required more impressive?
    • CommentAuthorspinner
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2009
     
    Posted By: maryyugo
    But what is driving the motor?
    Magnetic "energy"!
    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!"

    Oh yes.. The rotor as we saw it a few days ago is definitely driven by an external source, which is
    electricity provided by a power supply/battery/cell or whatever they have there. For sure.
  4.  
    Posted By: hairykrishna
    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.


    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?
  5.  
    Posted By: overconfident
    Woah back at ya. I said "Sean said", not "Sean demonstrated".


    You said 'is beginning to look more plausible'. It looks no more plausible now than it ever did. If, and it's a big if, the rotor is really being driven by changing the attraction of the magnets to the ferrite this is no different to driving it conventionally. It is still being driven by the coils.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2009 edited
     
    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.


    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 a standing start to the position of the coil.
  6.  
    Posted By: Angus
    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.


    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.


    You must have me confused with Mozart

    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.


    Compare the power dissipated in the coil with and without passing magnets, see if there is any difference. I am merely suggesting that there will be very little difference, maybe negligible, ie. the externally provided power is not being consumed to "drive" the rotor, it is only energising the coil.
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2009 edited
     
    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.

    What Sean says about Orbo going around isn't easy to test. If the energy driving the rotor is a tiny part of the total, how to measure it properly? But Sean also screwed the pooch-- he said that the device is 3X overunity implying clearly that this is with respect to the battery. Does that mean Orbo is recharging the battery? Or is he claiming there is 3X as much heat coming off Orbo as is input by the battery? We don't know because he didn't say (yet?).

    When he does, it will be comparatively easy to measure whether or not the battery is being drained and how much. Then it's a bit tougher but very doable to measure the heat output. Barring hidden stores of energy, gotten around by having Sean dismantle the device after the test on video or letting a third party take it apart, the energy balance is determinable. And I can absolutely guarantee you the energy used and emitted by Orbo will not be in the slightest greater than that which is put in with Mr. Hand, Mr. Battery or Mr. Whatever.

    (continued)
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2009
     
    (continued)The tough part is squeezing the info out of Sean. Obviously, he won't want Orbo to be properly tested because in my opnion, he knows exactly what it will show -- absolutely nothing remarkable in any way.

    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.
    •  
      CommentAuthoralsetalokin
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2009 edited
     
    Posted By: overconfident
    Posted By: hairykrishna
    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.


    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?


    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. (edited out a mistake caused by old ways of thought, sorry). 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.
  7.  
    Posted By: maryyugo
    "Sean says" again? Are you that stupid?


    Look Mary, I'm not 007 or Babcat.

    How about "Al says"?
    http://www.moletrap.co.uk/forum/?CommentID=26571
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2009
     
    @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.
    • CommentAuthortinker
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2009
     
    You are in the right street - but barking up a gumtree on a junction. Keep working at it T.
  8.  
    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.


    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"?
  9.  
    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.


    I wasn't making any claims about how much energy is consumed by the coil. It may very well be more expensive than a conventional DC motor. I was trying say something about the apparent isolation of the torque producing mechanism (magnet interacting with the core) and the electomagnetic components (coil, core, and power source). If the interactions of the PM and core do not adversely affect the power requirements to saturate the core, then the rotor is effectively spun without cost.

    I don't know whether that might be the case in reality, but it seems to be in line with Steorn's claim. And to my knowledge, the tests have not been done to show otherwise. Maybe that's what Sean intends to do in January.
    • CommentAuthorspinner
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2009
     
    "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"?"
    The interaction between energized toroid coil and magnet rotor is relatively week. Why don't you try the experiment, what is an amount of power needed to form and maintain the field in the toroid (where most BUT NOT ALL of the flux is trapped inside) while magnet flies by?
  10.  
    Posted By: overconfident
    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.


    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"?


    I think that's the right way to formulate the question if you want to test strictly electrically. How to measure that precise level of core saturation, though?