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

    •  
      CommentAuthorGrowler
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2009
     
    I've posted this in the other place, but might as well be posted here too...

    Since we now know that part of the equation which leads to the claim of overunity involves heat, how exactly will this be quantitatively derived as a result of the existing demo setup?
    •  
      CommentAuthorDuracell
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2009
     
    It won't be. This demo is not about proving anything.
    •  
      CommentAuthorgenesis
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2009
     
    Posted By: Growler how exactly will this be quantitatively derived as a result of the existing demo setup?


    it woun't.
  1.  
    Mehhhhhhhh

    A battery running an electric motor with no load will result in a hot motor and a flat battery.

    What is so fucking hard to understand here???
    • CommentAuthorbc
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2009 edited
     
    The heat output thing is just a bit of false accounting by Sean. Normally energy input to an electric motor generates some heat energy and kinetic energy of the rotor. What Sean seems to claim, is that in their motor all of the input energy is converted to heat, but nevertheless the rotor still spins. In conventional physics the KE of the Orbo rotor is "free energy". Sean will claim that while the rotor spins it loses some energy due to bearings and windage, but there is still some "spare energy" left to drive an electrical generator. Steorn have created the Holy Grail of FE, an overunity motor-generator combo.

    The e-Orbo is actually a variant on a shielded PM motor, which are widely regarded as impossible.

    Proving that all the electrical input energy is converted to heat would require some careful temperature measurements. But since this is key to their claim, measuring the heat output is the only way to check it. They could also show over-unity by showing more electrical output than input, but I believe that they will say their system is not good enough to capture enough of the "free energy" to show that yet. All the stuff about cancelling BEMF is just hand-waving.
  2.  
    This demo of borobo is the EM version. There is supposed to be a purely magnetic one as well. What exactly will it use to drive its motor?
    Given that the purpose of the motor is to create Free Energy and that the harvestible energy has to be less than the theoretical BEMF that the magnets in the motor *could* generate in an electric motor. You would need a dammed efficient harvesting mechanism to get it to power your cell phone unless of course your cell phone is off.
  3.  
    Posted By: Terry Lingle
    You would need a dammed efficient harvesting mechanism to get it to power your cell phone unless of course your cell phone is off.


    How is this EM version scalable? Sean had said in the beginning that the Steorn devices were scalable from a few millimeters or centimeters to meter{s} size.
  4.  
    Posted By: Knuckles OToole

    How is this EM version scalable? Sean had said in the beginning that the Steorn devices were scalable from a few millimeters or centimeters to meter{s} size.

    Simply by scaling the batterys 1 d cell... 2 d cell .... 1 car battery ..... you get the picture .5 w per cubic centimeter of input
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2009
     
    Well, I wouldn't argue about scalable. By the way if you have nothing, is that scalable? But one of the startling aspects of the Orbo design, an aspect right in front of our eyes from the start, is that most of it's available real estate is empty. If they need to make more electricity, why not fill in all that pretty smooth plastic rotor area with more active elements, whatever those supposedly active elements happen to be? On the kloodge they're showing, the scarcity of anything that's even supposed to work strongly suggests that nobody expected it to do very much except serve as an object of bamboozlement.
    •  
      CommentAuthoralsetalokin
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2009 edited
     
    I think I'm going soft in the head from exposure to some kind of third-order effect.
    Please look at my latest video and think carefully about the implications, and let me know what you come up with.

    I'm not converted by any means, but I understand a couple of things: the lads may not know how to present what they've got, but they do have an interesting way of driving their pulse motor, and it is difficult to explain where the energy comes from that drives the rotor.

    In a normal pulse motor, even in the Marinov slab, it's easy to see that the field of the coil attracts and/or repels the magnet's fields, and some of the energy that goes into setting up and collapsing the field is converted into kinetic energy of the rotor, and this is easy to show with common bench equipment of the sensitive variety when used correctly.

    However the Orbo works differently from this. The field of the toroidal coils is largely confined to the coil; it does not appreciably push (or pull) on the magnets. Hence one of the points of Sean's flubbed demo--the wire switch, rotation direction thing that did not come over correctly. The polarity in the coil has no effect on either the rotation direction OR, more importantly, the fact that the magnets are attracted to the cores when coil is unpowered, and NOT attracted OR repelled when the coil IS powered.

    In this case it is more difficult to show that the energy of rotation comes from the energy powering the coil...since the rotor receives NO THRUST when the coil IS powered.

    Weird, huh?
  5.  
    The natural magnetic attraction between magnet and ferromagnetic core would normally provide opposition to rotation. The power to the coil eliminates most of the magnetic opposition, thus allowing the rotor to continue rotating.

    BUT, if the cost of energizing the coil is greater than the energy gained by the rotor, all is for naught.
    •  
      CommentAuthorQuanten
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2009
     
    Al I said this in another thread, but I think the work done by the battery is the same in BOTH case when there is attraction or not.

    The magnet only see a potential magnetic field B in an atractive or repulsive way. You have two way to get this. You eitehr have normal EM which will be zero when they have no current, and a field B when they have a current I1 voltage V1, *OR* you do as Steorn do. You have a ferite core attracting when the current is off, at potential B, and you have a current I2 voltage V2, to saturate the core to supress that potential B.

    I doubt very much, that the I1/V1 is different than I2/V2.... Is there an error in my thinking ?

    It seems to me that in this case, baring loss in the coil in both case, it should be highly symetric.
  6.  
    Posted By: QuantenAl I said this in another thread, but I think the work done by the battery is the same in BOTH case when there is attraction or not.

    The magnet only see a potential magnetic field B in an atractive or repulsive way. You have two way to get this. You eitehr have normal EM which will be zero when they have no current, and a field B when they have a current I1 voltage V1, *OR* you do as Steorn do. You have a ferite core attracting when the current is off, at potential B, and you have a current I2 voltage V2, to saturate the core to supress that potential B.

    I doubt very much, that the I1/V1 is different than I2/V2.... Is there an error in my thinking ?

    It seems to me that in this case, baring loss in the coil in both case, it should be highly symetric.


    No, no error, I agree with you. The rotor turns when the coil is pulsed; it matters not, energetically, if the thrust comes when current is off or on. Just as long as the damn thing doesn't start running without pulses, then CofE will still be all right.
  7.  
    There are going to be some interesting pulse timing issues having to do with remanent magnetism in the ferrite core; that is, the shape of the B-H envelope, or "Frank's Banana".
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2009
     
    Posted By: alsetalokinI think I'm going soft in the head from exposure to some kind of third-order effect.
    Please look at my latest video and think carefully about the implications, and let me know what you come up with.

    I'm not converted by any means, but I understand a couple of things: the lads may not know how to present what they've got, but they do have an interesting way of driving their pulse motor, and it is difficult to explain where the energy comes from that drives the rotor.

    In a normal pulse motor, even in the Marinov slab, it's easy to see that the field of the coil attracts and/or repels the magnet's fields, and some of the energy that goes into setting up and collapsing the field is converted into kinetic energy of the rotor, and this is easy to show with common bench equipment of the sensitive variety when used correctly.

    However the Orbo works differently from this. The field of the toroidal coils is largely confined to the coil; it does not appreciably push (or pull) on the magnets. Hence one of the points of Sean's flubbed demo--the wire switch, rotation direction thing that did not come over correctly. The polarity in the coil has no effect on either the rotation direction OR, more importantly, the fact that the magnets are attracted to the cores when coil is unpowered, and NOT attracted OR repelled when the coil IS powered.

    In this case it is more difficult to show that the energy of rotation comes from the energy powering the coil...since the rotor receives NO THRUST when the coil IS powered.

    Weird, huh?
    No it isn't really. It is just a small value hidden behind a large value. If I were to take a circuit that pulses an LED at 3V and 1mA and put that in parallel with a Xenon stadium light, I would be hard pressed to see the overall power change during the LED pulsing.

    As Terry has said flux gate drivers have been around. When people want to make them efficient, they are called stored energy drivers. They have been used for many, many years.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2009
     
    Posted By: QuantenAl I said this in another thread, but I think the work done by the battery is the same in BOTH case when there is attraction or not.

    The magnet only see a potential magnetic field B in an atractive or repulsive way. You have two way to get this. You eitehr have normal EM which will be zero when they have no current, and a field B when they have a current I1 voltage V1, *OR* you do as Steorn do. You have a ferite core attracting when the current is off, at potential B, and you have a current I2 voltage V2, to saturate the core to supress that potential B.

    I doubt very much, that the I1/V1 is different than I2/V2.... Is there an error in my thinking ?

    It seems to me that in this case, baring loss in the coil in both case, it should be highly symetric.
    You are correct. And if the coils were powered by a current source then the BEMF pulse would be visible. Integrate the voltage of that pulse against the coil current and you have the electrical energy conveyed to kinetic in the exchange.
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2009
     
    This is all a lot of fun but I don't see how it supports a claim of overunity, much less robust overunity and 3X power out over power in!
  8.  
    Posted By: maryyugoThis is all a lot of fun but I don't see how it supports a claim of overunity, much less robust overunity and 3X power out over power in!


    Of course it doesn't support that claim. But at least they do have something to test. I didn't even think they had that much.
    Basically we've got what we predicted. An externally powered spinny thing, however unusual for a pulse motor, and a bunch of scope graphs that can't even illustrate what they claim to illustrate. Only now, we know what the spinny thing looks like and how it's supposed to work, and how pretty and colorful a modern Tek digital phosphor scope is.
  9.  
    It is all in the timing Al the magnets are attracted to the Ferite . As they apeoach the ferite is powered reducing the attraction this allows the magnet to pass then the ferite is turned off and the coasting magnet again pulls the rotor around. This causes short approach attraction power inputs to the rotor.
    The rotor power is very low as can be seen by the run up times and the final stable speed. OTOH The power input to run it this way seems to drain a big battery in about 8 -10 hours. Hint look at the wire gauge on the ferite coils they use. second hint the power levels are large enough to rapidly damage the reed switch. Third hint your maranove motors temperature readings I rather suspect that the power in from the battery is way in excess of the power out of the rotor. The rotor power is masked by the shear size of the coil power losses. There is no way to recover that heat into the batterys hence the only way to get OU would be from increasing the rotor magnetic efficiency to oh say 110% while reducing the torroid losses to below 10 % Good luck with that
    Don't loose sight of the forest because of the trees.
    • CommentAuthorspinner
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2009 edited
     
    Posted By: Terry LingleIt is all in the timing Al the magnets are attracted to the Ferite . As they apeoach the ferite is powered reducing the attraction this allows the magnet to pass then the ferite is turned off and the coasting magnet again pulls the rotor around.

    Yes, and just before the "TDC", coil is energized (opto-switch), providing the "leaking" flux (which simultaneously "shields" the core and provides torque against the rotor), so the magnet is pushed away to the next quadrant where action is repeated...

    This causes short approach attraction power inputs to the rotor.
    The rotor power is very low as can be seen by the run up times and the final stable speed. OTOH The power input to run it this way seems to drain a big battery in about 8 -10 hours. Hint look at the wire gauge on the ferite coils they use. second hint the power levels are large enough to rapidly damage the reed switch. Third hint your maranove motors temperature readings I rather suspect that the power in from the battery is way in excess of the power out of the rotor. The rotor power is masked by the shear size of the coil power losses. There is no way to recover that heat into the batterys hence the only way to get OU would be from increasing the rotor magnetic efficiency to oh say 110% while reducing the torroid losses to below 10 % Good luck with that
    Don't loose sight of the forest because of the trees.

    Yes, the torque produced is very small, but big enough to slowly accelerate rotor.
    Needles to say, the coils are actually dissipating most of the energy in a form of heat.