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

    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2010
     
    Sean has posted

    Ok - thats the basics - the inductance of a coil is LESS in the presence of an external field. What this means in our system is that you get a greater energy return from the collapse of the field of the EM than the energy it took to create the field, because at the point of field construction you have lower inductance than when the field collapses - hence you get an inductance energy gain thru the interaction rather than the inductance loss that was being discussed in this thread.


    This states directly that you can get more energy out of an inductor than you put in if you change its inductance. This is flat wrong because it neglects the energy required to change the inductance when the inductor has a current running in it.

    Think of a capacitor. If you charge it, it has energy CV^2/2. If you let the plates come together the capacitance increases, and if you keep the voltage constant, so does the stored energy. But the plates are under a force because the opposed charges attract each other, so as they approach each other work is done.
  1.  
    Okay,
    but now increase H by allowing a magnet to be attracted on an arc , (Free acceleration, Free increase in B of the core, thus far...) Now energize the coil near TDC..
    The magnet continues on it's arc, more freely than it would otherwise..
    Goodwill,
    -Dirtfarmer
    • CommentAuthorspinner
    • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2010
     
    Posted By: AngusSean has posted

    Ok - thats the basics - the inductance of a coil is LESS in the presence of an external field. What this means in our system is that you get a greater energy return from the collapse of the field of the EM than the energy it took to create the field, because at the point of field construction you have lower inductance than when the field collapses - hence you get an inductance energy gain thru the interaction rather than the inductance loss that was being discussed in this thread.


    This states directly that you can get more energy out of an inductor than you put in if you change its inductance. This is flat wrong because it neglects the energy required to change the inductance when the inductor has a current running in it.

    Think of a capacitor. If you charge it, it has energy CV^2/2. If you let the plates come together the capacitance increases, and if you keep the voltage constant, so does the stored energy. But the plates are under a force because the opposed charges attract each other, so as they approach each other work is done.


    Aha, messing with Capacitor's properties (geometry) will cost you energy...

    What Sean said is just a farce. Everything he said is explainable with classical electrotechnics/electromechanics/physics. In fact, it's a long used concept, think about all the obsolete magnetic recorder techniques (pre-biasing, remember the FeCr/CrO2 tapes differences, etc...).
    Trust me, no one found any OU there, although the tech was developed by EXPERTS and widely used for decades....(the subject was also heavily discussed on the old forum..)

    The energy needed is less if the biasing flux is oriented in the right direction, or more with the opposite... Nothing new here, one can check with any kind of multi-coil transformers wound on any kind (type) of core...
    • CommentAuthorbc
    • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2010
     
    EM is not my field, so forgive the simple question. From Seans' explanation how does that account for energy being transferred to the rotor? Or should the energy be released back into the generator circuit?
  2.  
    Technobabble. If this would be true, every transformer were OU. At least every switched mode transformer.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2010 edited
     
    Posted By: bcEM is not my field, so forgive the simple question. From Seans' explanation how does that account for energy being transferred to the rotor? Or should the energy be released back into the generator circuit?


    The initial acceleration is free. (Or rather, you put in the energy with Mr. Hand.) Energy is transferred to the rotor from the battery to PREVENT the toroid from STOPPING it. It's this backass business that has everybody confused.

    ETA - that's an answer for you too, Dirtfarmer
    • CommentAuthorbc
    • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2010
     
    Posted By: bloodymediaTechnobabble. If this would be true, every transformer were OU. At least every switched mode transformer.

    Yeah, just replace the PM with another coil , the rotor is not needed. Nor are the pickup coils on the Orbo.

    I haven't followed Sean technical explanations too closely before, but he just seem to be talking bollocks, making stuff up as he goes along. Is this typical of Seans techobabble?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2010
     
    Posted By: bcI haven't followed Sean technical explanations too closely before, but he just seem to be talking bollocks, making stuff up as he goes along. Is this typical of Seans techobabble?


    Actually, no. It's the first time I can recall that he has said something clear enough to be wrong.
    • CommentAuthorbc
    • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2010
     
    Posted By: AngusThe initial acceleration is free. (Or rather, you put in the energy with Mr. Hand.) Energy is transferred to the rotor from the battery to PREVENT the toroid from STOPPING it. It's this backass business that has everybody confused.

    Sure, I see how it works for real, I'm trying to see if Sean's explanation is self consistent. If energy is returned from the collapse of the field, how would that impart a force to the rotor? Would it not be collected as back EMF?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2010
     
    Posted By: bc, I see how it works for real, I'm trying to see if Sean's explanation is self consistent. If energy is returned from the collapse of the field, how would that impart a force to the rotor? Would it not be collected as back EMF?


    Reduced to the simplicities, I think the only field present when the magnet passes TDC is the electrically induced field, and yes, you would get back the energy in that. However, the energy you put into creating this field is larger than what you get back because some of it went into first "magnetically bullying" the PM field out of the toroid.
    • CommentAuthorbc
    • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2010
     
    Posted By: AngusReduced to the simplicities, I think the only field present when the magnet passes TDC is the electrically induced field, and yes, you would get back the energy in that.

    So Sean's explanation of "how it works" couldn't actually explain the "anomalous acceleration of the rotor" that Steorn claim happens in the Orbo.

    Inevitably as Steorn provide more detailed technical info, the basis for their claims evaporates. The thing that has always puzzled me about Steorn is that they seem like a bunch of genuine chaps, not out and out scammers. But then I wonder how they can be collectively so incompetent for so long, which brings me back to wondering if it really is a scam.
    • CommentAuthorTesl01D
    • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2010
     
    Posted By: bc
    Posted By: AngusReduced to the simplicities, I think the only field present when the magnet passes TDC is the electrically induced field, and yes, you would get back the energy in that.
    So Sean's explanation of "how it works" couldn't actually explain the "anomalous acceleration of the rotor" that Steorn claim happens in the Orbo.

    Inevitably as Steorn provide more detailed technical info, the basis for their claims evaporates. The thing that has always puzzled me about Steorn is that they seem like a bunch of genuine chaps, not out and out scammers. But then I wonder how they can be collectively so incompetent for so long, which brings me back to wondering if it really is a scam.
    What gets me is how you lot actually think you're out-thinking Steorn here from your armchairs...
    Gawd help the World if you actually do turn out to be right. We'd never here the end of it till the End of Time.

    All I want to know is: baked or BBQ'd..?
  3.  
    Repost from other thread, but I think it importantly belongs here..


    Here is the thinking, (rather plainly)
    Rotor magnet is attracted to core, cores' domains align with H of Rotor mag..ideally to saturation (We'll use an ideal scenario for the concept)
    Current is applied to the coil, because the core is already saturated, less current is necessary than would be were it not saturated,
    Core is now effectively "shielded",
    Permanent magnet on rotor leaves the scene, un affected..

    Coil is now de-energized, field collapses, and core relaxes to whatever its' remanence level is... current induced is greater than first used, because the PM provided the energy for saturation, Now recoverable.
    OU... yes ,, it would be..
    Breaking CoE, no, ...harnessing whatever it is that motivates electron spin..
    Goodwil,
    -Dirtfarmer

    (And this was the basis of my Sv, "trapping the flux" shielding and all of that about a week ago..)
    EDIT for a "..."
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2010
     
    Posted By: DirtfarmerCurrent is applied to the coil, because the core is already saturated, less current is necessary than would be were it not saturated,


    Nice try, but no.

    Magnetisation has a DIRECTION. The magnetisation that the PM induces is not the same as the magnetisation that the coil induces. Even if the PM saturates the toroid core, energy will have to be put in by the coil if it wants to take over.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2010
     
    Posted By: AngusSean has posted

    Ok - thats the basics - the inductance of a coil is LESS in the presence of an external field. What this means in our system is that you get a greater energy return from the collapse of the field of the EM than the energy it took to create the field, because at the point of field construction you have lower inductance than when the field collapses - hence you get an inductance energy gain thru the interaction rather than the inductance loss that was being discussed in this thread.


    This states directly that you can get more energy out of an inductor than you put in if you change its inductance. This is flat wrong because it neglects the energy required to change the inductance when the inductor has a current running in it.

    Think of a capacitor. If you charge it, it has energy CV^2/2. If you let the plates come together the capacitance increases, and if you keep the voltage constant, so does the stored energy. But the plates are under a force because the opposed charges attract each other, so as they approach each other work is done.
    Steorn's current idiocy sounds like a rehash of their slow in, fast out nonsense. Steorn's claims are just about garden pathing very bad accounting.
  4.  
    For all you know the core is polar anisotropic and the rotor magnets are reverse polarity (there are 2),
    and that the energized polarity is only maintained on the "skin" of the core, but I have no way of knowing that
    ...Personally I believe it is likely circumferential anisotropic,, ..which would maintain the core flow according to all classical models..
    Goodwill,
    -Dirtfarmer
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2010
     
    Posted By: DirtfarmerFor all you know the core is polar anisotropic and the rotor magnets are reverse polarity (there are 2),
    and that the energized polarity is only maintained on the "skin" of the core, but I have no way of knowing that
    ...Personally I believe it is likely circumferential anisotropic,, ..which would maintain the core flow according to all classical models..
    Goodwill,
    -Dirtfarmer


    It matters not at all. The field from the PM can have very little directionality in common with the circumferential field of the toroid. It is the pointy end of a dipole field whizzing by, after all.
    • CommentAuthorDirtfarmer
    • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2010 edited
     
    Re-post- (I promise, my last..)

    The issue at hand is one of ENERGY, The rotor magnet had actually increased the energy in the core, When magnetic viscosity is modelled it is given the nomenclature Sv, which stands for the increased entropy in a magnet prior to an increase in B..
    This is what is at hand and is "trapped" by the coil...
    I agree that it should take work to align the resultant field, but I believe that one can come up with situations where that may be minimized (i.e: anisotropic materials, or perhaps in a toroidal coil it is only the "skin" that is aligned, perhaps the "core" remains in a "state" of Sv..)
    Goodwill,
    -Dirtfarmer
    • CommentAuthorbc
    • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2010
     
    Posted By: Tesl01DWhat gets me is how you lot actually think you're out-thinking Steorn here from your armchairs...

    My whole career I have spent sitting and thinking, it's called engineering but a lot of professions are similar. How fucking amazing is that? I just sit and think, and somehow that is considered valuable.

    Homo sapiens? My arse.
  5.  
    I guess the point here, is that it is pretty clear that this is what Steorn are claiming,
    According to you it is readily falsifiable, and to them readily proven.
    We shall see.
    Goodwill,
    -Dirtfarmer