Language:
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.
 Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here: https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

Custom Search

### Author Topic: Splitting the electron stream  (Read 84775 times)

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3287
##### Splitting the electron stream
« on: November 30, 2010, 06:08:47 AM »

Please feel free to discuss it here also.

Thanks,

GB

#### void109

• Full Member
• Posts: 177
##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #1 on: November 30, 2010, 04:17:37 PM »
Quote from: Gravityblock
In short, the orbo effect is a convergence or Impedance Match of the L/R Time Constant between the current and the voltage.

The inductance of the coil is 961mH at the beginning of the pulse in the Steorn demo talks. At the end of the pulse, the inductance of the coil is 984mH. The difference in inductance between the start and end of the pulse is 23mH. This difference of 23mH divided by 0.63 is 36.5. Let's round 36.5 up to 37. Watch the first minute of this Steorn video to see what I'm talking about.

Let me explain the significance of 23mH, 0.63 and 37. The L/R TIME CONSTANT determines the time required for current in an inductor to reach a specific value. One L/R time constant is the time required for the current in an inductor to increase to 63 percent (actually 63.2 percent or 0.632) of the maximum current (Voltage source divided by Resistance), thus the reason for dividing 23mH by 0.63. Each time constant is equal to the time required for the current to increase by 63.2 percent of the difference in value between the current flowing in the inductor and the maximum current. Maximum current flows in the inductor after five L/R time constants are completed.

What do you think happens to the voltage in the inductor? The voltage in the inductor will fall approximately 37% of the initial voltage in a time equal to the TIME CONSTANT, thus the reason why 23mH divided by 0.63 equals 37. The voltage will fall another 37% for the next time constant, and so on.

What is the importance in the 23mH? It's the number which relates both the L/R time constant of the voltage and current for an impedance match between them, and may also be the pulse width in degrees. This means when the current rises 100% of its maximum current in the first time constant, the voltage will not drop in a time equal to the time constant. The current will reach 100% of its maximum current in the first time constant, because there is a 100% transfer of energy in the first pass (the complete transfer of energy doesn't occur in 5 L/R time constants, but happens in 1 L/R time constant when there is an impedance match) There is no BEMF or CEMF in this system, not even when building the magnetic field in the coil. When there is an impedance match, then there is a 100% energy transfer in 1 L/R time constant.

I'm not a member of the SKDB or associated with Steorn in any way. I found a correlation between the L/R TIME CONSTANT and A CONVERGENCE OF THE MOTION CONSTANTS in the publication on the "Quantization of Energy" by Frank Znidarsic on page 9 of 12. All credits go to Frank Znidarsic for his research on the quantum transitional speed, so I could make this connection!

Thanks GB!  I have a question about why you chose to divide the inductance delta between the two positions or states (23mH) by the time constant percentage (63.2%).  I understand that by doing so you can do some maths to wind up landing on FZ's quantum transition speed.  But is that just a fun coincidence or is there a fundamental reason why you chose to do so?  You said:

Quote from: Gravityblock
The voltage in the inductor will fall approximately 37% of the initial voltage in a time equal to the TIME CONSTANT, thus the reason why 23mH divided by 0.63 equals 37

As I understand it (just read about it now, so forgive obvious mistakes), 63.2% is the value used to determine the L/R time constant.  I dont intuitively understand how that percentage relates to the inductance delta, and why you would divide it as you have done.  Can you help me understand the reason?

Quick note to others on 'e' from what I've read.

e = Euler's number
1/e = 0.367879441
1 - 1/e = 0.632120559

Thanks much!    I've been enjoying seattle4truth's youtube videos on Frank Znidarsics work, waiting for the next episode.  Also trying to work through the math on my own, I'm a bit rusty

#### void109

• Full Member
• Posts: 177
##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2010, 04:26:15 PM »
Quote from: Gravityblock
The L/R TIME CONSTANT determines the time required for current in an inductor to reach a specific value. One L/R time constant is the time required for the current in an inductor to increase to 63 percent (actually 63.2 percent or 0.632) of the maximum current (Voltage source divided by Resistance), thus the reason for dividing 23mH by 0.63.

I think this needs to be corrected?

The L/R TIME CONSTANT is determined by the amount of time required for current in an inductor to reach a specific value (63.2% of maximum current).

The way you wrote it sounds like the L/R TC is what determines the time required, but from what I read, the time required IS the constant, which you derive from L, R and 63.2% (1-1/e).

This might just be semantics, but that was a confusing point for me when trying to work through what you posted

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3287
##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2010, 07:20:19 PM »
I think this needs to be corrected?

The L/R TIME CONSTANT is determined by the amount of time required for current in an inductor to reach a specific value (63.2% of maximum current).

The way you wrote it sounds like the L/R TC is what determines the time required, but from what I read, the time required IS the constant, which you derive from L, R and 63.2% (1-1/e).

This might just be semantics, but that was a confusing point for me when trying to work through what you posted

Study the graph in Figure (1)1. - L/R time constant found on this page,  http://www.sayedsaad.com/fundmental/9_inductance%20of%20a%20coil.%20.htm , along with the formula TC in seconds = L / R, while remembering there are 5 L/R TC required for the current to rise to it's maximum current (Vs/R).  This means it takes 5 L/R TC to transfer 100% of the total energy due to 37% of the energy being reflected back in each of the 5 L/R TC.  When 100% of the total energy is transferred in 1 L/R TC, then there is no energy to be reflected back to work against the applied voltage, thus no BEMF.  I Hope this helps.  I'm not the best at putting my thoughts into words, sorry.

GB

#### void109

• Full Member
• Posts: 177
##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #4 on: November 30, 2010, 08:56:29 PM »

You are referring to 100% energy transfer during 1 L/T TC.  Was there evidence of this behavior in Steorn's demonstrations or is this your speculation as to what is occurring?

I think I saw in S4T's videos that when the mechanical resonant frequency of the nuclei in an atom matches the speed of light in the material that energy transfer would be 100% and instantaneous.  Did I understand that correctly?  That may be why I'm hanging up on this, because instant is âˆž greater than Ï„.

I have to watch the videos a second and third time, picking them apart, and working through the math to internalize it.  Right now I just have a sense of what Frank's work means and implies, I need to understand.  I should just duck into a hole for a few weeks until I do.  I don't want to derail what you're doing with inappropriate questions.

Still learning!

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3287
##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #5 on: November 30, 2010, 10:20:02 PM »

You are referring to 100% energy transfer during 1 L/T TC.  Was there evidence of this behavior in Steorn's demonstrations or is this your speculation as to what is occurring?

I think I saw in S4T's videos that when the mechanical resonant frequency of the nuclei in an atom matches the speed of light in the material that energy transfer would be 100% and instantaneous.  Did I understand that correctly?  That may be why I'm hanging up on this, because instant is âˆž greater than Ï„.

I have to watch the videos a second and third time, picking them apart, and working through the math to internalize it.  Right now I just have a sense of what Frank's work means and implies, I need to understand.  I should just duck into a hole for a few weeks until I do.  I don't want to derail what you're doing with inappropriate questions.

Still learning!

Yes, there is evidence of the voltage/current rising in the e-Orbo demonstrations together almost instantaneously, and the rise time in the current was the same for the voltage.  The voltage didn't lag the current, and the current didn't lag the voltage.  If you're transferring energy at a rate of 1,094,000 m/s over a very tiny distance, then the transfer of energy is nearly instantaneous.  The energy will be transfered at the rate of the TC, assuming the TC is the same for both the voltage and current.  When the Voltage/Current =  the same TC, then the speed of the light in the electronic structure will match the speed of the mechanical waves in the nucleur structure of the atoms, which allows energy to be transferred in one TC almost instantaneously.  You're on the right track.

GB

#### lumen

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1372
##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #6 on: December 01, 2010, 05:26:42 AM »
I could be missing something here, but isn't this just another way of saying the same thing?
Say a 15 Henry coil is passing a magnet and the inductance drops to 1 Henry. Then a current is applied that energizes the coil to 100%, going through all the 5 t/c steps.  Then as the magnet moves away, the inductance increases back to 15 Henry and all this happens in less than 1 t/c of the 15 Henry coil, which is much longer than all 5 t/c steps of the 1 Henry coil.
There is also much less BEMF in the 1 Henry coil than even the 1 t/c of the 15 Henry coil.
Is this not the same thing?

#### juice

• Newbie
• Posts: 24
##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #7 on: December 01, 2010, 07:32:33 PM »
The number 1.094 isn't dimensionless. It's MHz-m.

To subtract it from inverse Henries has no meaning. The result of the calculation isn't even close to exact anyway. I know you want to unify the ideas you like, but it just doesn't work out like this.

This isn't science, it's numerology.

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3287
##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #8 on: December 01, 2010, 11:45:36 PM »
The number 1.094 isn't dimensionless. It's MHz-m.

To subtract it from inverse Henries has no meaning
. The result of the calculation isn't even close to exact anyway. I know you want to unify the ideas you like, but it just doesn't work out like this.

This isn't science, it's numerology.

Below is a quote from ashtweth, who has acquired a License from Steorn, who is privileged to information that is not known to the public.

Quote from: ashtweth;114072
Yes we are still here and working on it, when we get results we will post them:) , we have not been abducted by aliens, killed by MIB's or are wasting time making stupid posts like the mole trap FREAKS or Paul lowerence

We have re wound our coils to get the inductance needed for the E orbo effect, , time variant magnetic interactions have come a long way with Steorn, i  say dont  wait for our results with the E-orbo, i have seen enough from our Trustee to indicate their effect is REAL (solid state video). So go for it:thumbsup: .

Our SS board has already been ordered and will be here soon, we spin our E-orbo this weekend, you need a certain mH and voltage current to get the orbo effect happening,it takes time.. Naudin and no one on the net has this needed value, its a specific  number, i cant say any more. Or my ass gets beat.

The reason for us taking so long was to learn this mH and voltage current to get the time variant field happening.  The solid state board rectifies these learning curves. so when its here (we already ordered it) it will  be instant, analog Dc in and measured through an analog meter into a resistive load (heat) .  We are not giving up on LEARNING the E- orb , no way

Ill post when we have results my friend be patient cheers:
we do not sleep or waste time, you can ask the members of Steorn

Ash

As you can see, a certain inductance is needed along with the voltage and current to get the orbo effect happening.  No one on the net has this needed value or specific number.  I can tell you right now, that the inductance, voltage, and current are all related to a specific number.  This is why there has been no successful replication of the e-Orbo or ssOrbo from the Open Source Community.

Also, if you need a time variant field to get the effect, don't you think a good place to look for this is with the time constants of the voltage and current?  The 63 and 37 are related to the time constants and so is the inductance and resistance.... and it was the difference of these two values divided by 1.094 which gave a result of 24.153667093235831809872029250457, and it just happens that the 24.1536...... is nearly the same difference between the inductance at the beginning of the pulse and the inductance at the end of the pulse during one of Steorn's demonstration talks.  It doesn't take a mathematician to realize the odds of this happening by chance are astronomical.  Having said this, the difference in inductance or the inductance change of 24.1536... could be responsible for a time variant field when, and only when, all of the other parameters are correct, such as voltage, current, and inductance.  Now, take this quick summary of what I have done, then compare it to what ashtweth said in the above quote.

I never subtracted the 1.094 from the inverse of Henries.  Please show me where I did this in any of my posts.  What I did with the 1.094 is explained above.  I suggest you and everyone else to start crunching the numbers.  Also, please show me how the result of the calculation isn't even close to exact?  If you're referring to the 1.094 not being close to 1,094,000..... then we may only be talking about decimal points between unit conversions, etc.  Example:  0.985H = 985mH (the numbers themselves aren't equal, but when conversion is taken into account, then the result is the same.  Even if the result isn't the same due to not taking the conversion into account, the numbers themselves will be the same.  Example: .25 doesn't equal 25, but when 25 is a percent and taken into account, then the numbers themselves are equal and will return the same result.  Also, an unknown number(s) or other calculations could always move the decimal point of 1.094 to the right by six positions to get 1,094,000.  Example:  1.094 * 1,000,000 = 1,094,00.  I could go on and on.  The bottom line is your argument is baseless and has no meaning. Regardless, it results in a number which is nearly identical to what is found in the demo talks against extreme odds of this happening by chance.

GB
« Last Edit: December 02, 2010, 02:41:34 AM by gravityblock »

#### happyfunball

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 405
##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #9 on: December 02, 2010, 12:06:11 AM »
Fascinating, but it's four years and counting. When does 'Orbo' power anything in the real world? 100 years from today?

#### utilitarian

• Hero Member
• Posts: 816
##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #10 on: December 02, 2010, 01:16:21 AM »
Wait, I did not know the Orbo effect was ever successfully forward engineered.

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3287
##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #11 on: December 02, 2010, 02:00:03 AM »
Wait, I did not know the Orbo effect was ever successfully forward engineered.

You have a good point, but please start another thread to discuss if the effect is real or not.  I'm trying to show in this thread how the effect is real, mathematically.

Thanks,

GB

#### juice

• Newbie
• Posts: 24
##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #12 on: December 02, 2010, 02:36:59 AM »
Quote
63 - 37 = 26. It should be obvious where the 63 and 37 came from.

26 / 23mH = 1.130

1.130 - 1.094 = 0.036

63 and 37 are percentages. They have no units, same with 26.
Then you divide 26 by 23mH, giving 1.13 the units of inverse Henries (technically it's inverse millihenries, but as you mentioned, it's just a matter of decimal places and I don't really care about that)

The units of inverse Henry using the least derived units is:
meters^2 * kg / C^2

Fundamentally, your claim is that 1.13 is close to 1.094, so that is what is represented by dividing 26 by 23 mH. BUT 1.094 is a SPEED, and its basic units are: m / s

(again we can convert 1.094 MHz-m, so it would be 1094000 m/s, but I don't care about that)

So what you are doing by comparing a number with units of inverse henry (1.13 mH^-1) to speed (1.094E6 m/s) MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.

You say that it's beyond chance to find numbers so close so it must have meaning, but you don't appreciate how remarkably easy it is to throw together some numbers algebraically and get a result within a few percent.

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3287
##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #13 on: December 02, 2010, 03:11:35 AM »
63 and 37 are percentages. They have no units, same with 26.
Then you divide 26 by 23mH, giving 1.13 the units of inverse Henries (technically it's inverse millihenries, but as you mentioned, it's just a matter of decimal places and I don't really care about that)

The units of inverse Henry using the least derived units is:
meters^2 * kg / C^2

Fundamentally, your claim is that 1.13 is close to 1.094, so that is what is represented by dividing 26 by 23 mH. BUT 1.094 is a SPEED, and its basic units are: m / s

(again we can convert 1.094 MHz-m, so it would be 1094000 m/s, but I don't care about that)

So what you are doing by comparing a number with units of inverse henry (1.13 mH^-1) to speed (1.094E6 m/s) MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.

You say that it's beyond chance to find numbers so close so it must have meaning, but you don't appreciate how remarkably easy it is to throw together some numbers algebraically and get a result within a few percent.

I said units, etc.  You conveniately overlooked "etc." with your unit argument.  In addition, 1% could refer to 1 unit, or 5% could refer to 5 units.  Your point is senseless from my perspective.  I even said 63 and 37 were approximate.  The exact values are below, based on Euler's constant.

63.2120559 - 36.7879441 = 26.4241118

26.4241118 / 1.094 = 24.153667093235831809872029250457.  The 1.13 is now 1.094 by substituting the approximate values with the exact values, for a perfect match.  Anyways, the 1.13 was actually 1.13^-1 m/s and not 1.13mH^-1 as you stated.  So, the comparison was actually (1.13^-1 m/s) to speed (1.094E6 m/s).  You mistated the facts and used the approximate values instead of the exact values I later posted.  In the steorn demo, the difference in inductance was 985 - 961 = 24.  The 985 and 961 is ignoring any precision in decimal digits on the display because there was small fluctuations.  A closer look at the video, showed the inductance rose slightly above 985, so I substituted my previous number of 984 with 985, and this changed the 23 to a 24.  With these new numbers, the results are identical to each other when ignoring the decimal digits and are well within experimental error.  My calculations are much less than a few percent.  The calculations could almost be considered an exact match if the small fluctuations are taken into consideration.  The final result, was a comparison between my calculations of 24.153667093235831809872029250457 and the change in induction of 24.xxxx in the demo talks.

In regards to your henry to m/s B.S., there is a fatal flaw in your thought process which I'm going to take care of right now. The speed of the magnetic field propagating through a core material is relatively slow.  In Steorn's test with Nickel, the magnetic field propagated through the material in 100 m/s, if my memory serves me correctly.  What if the speed of the magnetic field in a material changes with an induction change (Steorn has done extensive studies on magnetic viscosity and it shouldn't be overlooked).  If this is the case, then your argument holds no weight once again, because inductance could be a factor in the speed of the magnetic field in a material, which relates to m/s. This would definitely correspond to a time varying field if the other parameters, such as voltage, current, and inductance had the correct values.  Even if this isn't the case, then maybe the inductance could be part of a function relating to the speed/time of something else.  You can divide the henry by the resistance in ohms, which are different units of measurment, to get the time constant, which is also a different unit of measurement. So, why can't you do henry to speed if there is a relationship between them?  We can see by the equation TC = L/R, that the inductance is related to time, so there's a strong possiblity that it could be related to speed or m/s also.  It should be obvious, if you don't know what the numbers represent or how they relate to each other, then it is foolish to assign it a unit of measurement or anything else.

The fine structure constant is used all of the time, even though nobody knew how this number was calculated.  This number was only used because it gave the correct results, but nobody knew why.  It doesn't matter if you know why or not, if it gives the correct result all of the time, then that is what is important.  You can calculate the fine structure constant with 1.094 megahertz m/s. Science now knows the fine structure constant is related to the quantum transitional speed, and can now calculate the fine structure constant.  They no longer have to worry about why they're using the fine structure constant.

GB
« Last Edit: December 02, 2010, 07:01:05 AM by gravityblock »

#### juice

• Newbie
• Posts: 24
##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #14 on: December 02, 2010, 07:48:26 AM »
You can divide the henry by the resistance in ohms, which are different units of measurment, to get the time constant, which is also a different unit of measurement. So, why can't you do henry to speed if there is a relationship between them?

Henry has units Ohm*s. Therefore, you divide the inductance in henries by the resistance in ohms and you get the time constant, in units of seconds. That works just fine.

What you are doing is saying that 24 mH is special because if you divide it by 1.094 MHz*m, you get approximately 100*(1-2/e), a dimensionless constant. That doesn't work at all. What if you decided to use cgs units?!

Here is an analogy: I notice that my hand is 3*pi inches long. EUREKA! The secret to the universe is revealed in my hand! But only because I'm using English units... so it doesn't make sense. If I used metric units, the whole thing falls apart.

In science, it doesn't matter what units you use, but they must AGREE in your equations...

Quote
inductance could be a factor in the speed of the magnetic field in a material, which relates to m/s. This would definitely correspond to a time varying field if the other parameters, such as voltage, current, and inductance had the correct values. Even if this isn't the case, then maybe the inductance could be part of a function relating to the speed/time of something else.

That's nice, but then why doesn't your equation take these into account? It shouldn't work if it ignores these factors.