A very basic question to you knowledgeable people around here:
In Steorn's latest videos they showed some details of the current measurements, like below picture taken from one of these videos (the yellow trace)

Now, according to theory, if you switch on a coil, the current flow is increasing very rapidly from the start and then saturates (like the black curve in the graph below)
Steorns current curve shows differently, indicated by the blue dashed curve in the same graph below

Why is that?

Yes I've also noticed that but looking at the hysteresis loop makes me think that they've just simply made a mistake in the table. All in all Bsat for Finemet is 1.23T.

The word maximum has no meaning to you?  It could very well be a mistake as you suggested, but this "maximum" flux density suggests it is not a mistake in the table.  Also, the table shows both the saturation flux density and the saturation induction (maximum flux density) at 20 degrees for the Finemet.    The Saturation flux density is 0.57T and the saturation induction at 20 degrees is 1.23T.  Why would they list both in the table if they were the same?  They also don't bother to list the saturation induction numbers with the Meglas, why not?  I don't think it's a mistake, those two numbers appear to have different meanings and that's why they're both listed in the table.  The saturation induction is probably a unique property of the Finemet cores as compared to the Metglas cores.

This could be what is responsible for the energy gain in inductance due to the Aharonov–Bohm effect.  A material may have an Aharonov–Bohm effect, but if the core can't hold the additional energy being pulled into it, then it won't have an energy gain in inductance.  There will only be an energy gain in inductance if the core can hold this additional energy due to the Aharonov–Bohm effect or other unknown effects that is pulling this additional energy into the core material.  If the saturation induction is higher than the bsat, then the core can hold additional energy that is being pulled into it, thus an energy gain in inductance.  Other than this, the Finemet and Metglas cores are almost identical in properties.  There must be something different between the two cores, and I think the main difference is the saturation inductance.

We need a little diversification.  Don't put all of our eggs in the same basket.  I guess we need to find out if it's a mistake or not, and if it's not a mistake, then what are the advantages and disadvantages with this material.  You do bring up a good point with the hysteresis loop though.  Fascinating stuff.

[Edit:]  There is a saturation point where the core starts to lose attractiveness (around 0.45T), a saturation point where the core is no longer attractive (0.57T, Bsat), and a saturation point where additional flux can no longer be held within the core (1.23T, Saturation Induction).  This is how I'm looking at it.

In the Finemet, 1.23T / 0.57T = 2.15 and 1.23T / 0.45T = 2.73.  These numbers with the Finemet cores are close to the Cop > 2 claims by Steorn. 

In the Metglas, 0.57T(Bsat) / 0.57T (assuming the saturation induction is the same as the Bsat) = 1.0 minus electrical losses, air friction, friction in the bearings, etc. would put it below unity with the Metglas cores, or at unity/slightly above if the saturation induction is a little higher than 0.57, or if we calculate it with 0.45T with the Metglas.  I realize this may not be the correct way to figure this up and could be called pseudoscience, but the results are interesting nonetheless.  Why isn't the Finemet cores being discussed as a possible core material?  IMO, the Finemet has some interesting potential and shouldn't be ignored.


GB

I thought Sean explained that... I remember him referring to that noisy, gently sloping up region before the vertical increase in current.  Does it have to do with the turn on time of the switching device?

What's the time-scale/division on that pic?

-Mark

Sean mentioned that this is related to the change in permeability.
Change in permeability means change in induction value.
It still remains an induction. The curve doesn't indicate that.

Time scale, vertical, is 10 mA per division.

GB, interesting theory.
If I look to the B-H curve of Finemet then the saturation level shows 1.23 T.
Shouldn't that be 0.57 with your approach?

Also, how would one use the ratio Bindsat/Bsat to get the the extra energy out in your view? I.e. what would be the sequence of operation to benifit from the AB effect?

The B-H curve of Finemet is showing the saturation point of 1.23T which is the point where it can't hold anymore flux inside the core.  The 0.57T is when the material has 0% attraction and this doesn't end the B-H curve in the Finemet.  I'm not saying I'm right or wrong.  I just think it needs to be researched and not overlooked.

One such area is strong gradients (as used on the leading and trailing edges of the input energy pulses) and another is memory characteristic of materials (as in the nanocrystalline core materials and structure that freely localize the B-field and thus evoke the Aharonov-Bohm effect and possibly needs a much higher Bindsat than the Bsat in order to benefit.  Nanocrystalline or layered crystalline cores may not be necessary and may only improve efficiency.  The wiki article I used as a reference says the affect has been noticed in carbon nanotubes, non-superconducting metallic rings, and nano rings.

Bruce_TPU mentions TB in the solid state thread and suggests the core material doesn't need to be a nanocrystalline material and steel could possibly be used and this would be inline with the Adams motor also, but he hasn't linked it to the Aharonov-Bohm effect yet, http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8597.msg223948#msg223948

Once you start connecting the dots, then it's really hard to overlook this.  The dots are the Aharonov-Bohm effect, TB MEG based on this affect, nanocrystalline and other cores,  rise time in current according to Steorn and TB, possible energy gain in inductance due to a much higher Bindsat than the Bsat of the material, if the effect is present in the material.  Both Sean and TB refers to modifying time frames and pulling this extra energy into the core from space/time.  If one reads all of the reference materials I first provided when I mentioned this, then the dots are easy to connect in my view.  This has to do with the uncurled A potential outside of the core of the curled B field localized inside the core.  k4zep has even mentioned the uncurled A, I believe.  It's time to start connecting the dots, and I think all of the dots have something in common.

Wheeler clearly pointed out that mass and space continually interact. Quoting Wheeler: "Space acts on matter, telling it how to move. In turn, matter reacts back on space, telling it how to curve."

The extra energy that is pulled into the core more than likely adds mechanical energy to the system while utilizing less input energy to do so.  In the ssOrbo, you won't have the mechanical gain, but the additional energy that is pulled into the core will follow the flux path of the ferromagnetic materials which would be beneficial.

A lot of this stuff is over my head at the moment.  It will take a little time before I am able to wrap my mind around it better.  I understand the main concept, but not all of the small details, etc.  This is why I'm trying to bring this to everyone's attention.  The worst case scenario in researching this material and effect is possibly learning a little more.


GB

Hi GB,
Just please write an email to the producer of this core and he will simply tell you it's a mistake. As for the rest I will just stay quiet ;]

If the magnets are pre-saturating the cores at 0.47T, then do you really think 10,000mA in the pulse with a highly permeable material is only going to create 0.10T flux density to saturate the core at 0.57T where it is no longer attractive?  No, the 10,000mA (10amps) in a highly permeable core is going to create a much higher flux density inside the core to saturate it at much higher values than we're currently talking about.

Take a look at this post, http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8411.msg222441#msg222441 .  It says, "the N25 is rated at 0.98-1.02 T.  Divide this by half and we have 500mT (0.5T) on one end...a perfect match!" 

The 0.98T-1.02T is much closer to 1.23T than the half on one end we've been working with.  The field strength of the dual magnets with opposite poles won't be one half when they're TDC with the core and the pulse would only need to saturate the core with 0.23T with the Finemet as compared to the 0.10T with the metglas while taking only one end into consideration relative to the core.

I've asked this question before and nobody cares to answer it.  How much flux density will 10amps with any given core provide in flux density to help saturate it so it is no longer attractive?  Answering this question in addition to the proper strength of magnets will help to determine what core is being used and nobody cares to answer this.  The 10amps in the pulse has been totally left out of the equation.

It doesn't matter if it's a mistake or not.  If it's not a mistake, then the 10amps pulse in addition to the magnets could be giving it a total of 1.23T flux density inside the core for a Finemet core.

The questions I am asking now and have asked earlier in this thread aren't being taken into consideration.  It's like the 10amps in the pulse is totally being ignored.  Everybody is trying it at relatively low amps compared to the 10amps from Steorn.  Even Paul is using lower amps in his Metglas core so he doesn't cause the core to flip so he can try to capture the BEMF.  There is good reason why Steorn is using higher amps and it has nothing to do with flipping it or not.  If it's being flipped at lower amps, then maybe it's not the correct core.

I don't see any true replication attempts.  The replication attempts I am seeing is people modifying the setup trying to improve on it or following their own ideas on trying to obtain the Orbo effect.  I have a feeling people are holding back the data on their experiments because they're not getting the expected results.  Of course not, because we're building and not replicating.

I give up.  This is a waste of time.  Sean was right in his statement about the people on their forum don't make up the scientific community.  I didn't agree with him before, but I do now.

I don't have all of the answers, and there are things I don't understand......but I do know when things aren't adding up correctly.


GB

Sure but nobody has ever said that ORBO uses 10A! If you've figured that out from the battery that Steorn is using then you must know that 10000mAh battery doesn't mean that it must provide 10A current. I don't really think that it can even provide such a current without any harm to the battery itself.

There's a big difference in 10,000mAh compared to 300mAh or less to what people are currently trying.  Even the current Paul tested his device on was only 1/3 of what the battery in the Orbo is delivery because he didn't want to flip it.  Let's put things into perspective for a change.  We're trying to do it with less.  Sometimes less is not better.  We're trying to do it our way instead of following what Steorn is doing.  Trying to do it with less and not following what Steorn is doing is not replicating, it's just building. 

I wonder how many people are using a 10,000mAh battery like Steorn is using in their Orbo replication attempts?  Not 1 that I have seen.  If we can't get what is known right, then I doubt we will get what is not known right, such as the core.

Less voltage, more current to match the Orbo.  Different core materials need to be tested and results compared since we're not 100% sure of the correct core.  This is just common sense and logical.  How anyone can disagree or ignore this is beyond me, but yet this is what will happen more than likely.  Totally unbelievable.  It doesn't really surprise me though, because I see it happen all the time.


GB

I don't see any true replication attempts.  The replication attempts I am seeing is people modifying the setup trying to improve on it or following their own ideas on trying to obtain the Orbo effect.  I have a feeling people are holding back the data on their experiments because they're not getting the expected results.  Of course not, because we're building and not replicating.

I give up.  This is a waste of time.  Sean was right in his statement about the people on their forum don't make up the scientific community.  I didn't agree with him before, but I do now.

Well, don't count us all out yet.  And yes, some of us have been watching every single theory that has been popped out here.  Just because we don't all reply to it, does not mean we are ignoring it.  Trust me, I've been following all your comments, and trying to learn more about each effect, and move along as best I can.  Keep it coming, just don't get to frustrated.  The search for free energy is not an easy one without headaches.

I don't like siding with people who seem to just argue about everything, but I must say, just because they used a 10 amp hr battery, does not mean they are using that much current at all.  For all we know, they are using 5ma of current, and just simply wanted a battery that could run their orbo for days easily if it did not charge as planned.  You must realize, after the public humiliation Steorn went through last time, I'm quite sure they were planning on avoiding showing a motor that died after 1 hour of operation if it did not work as planned.  I personally think the 10 amp hr battery was just a form of insurance for them.

I have not posted much about my replications, for a couple reasons.  My digital camcorder shot craps so have not been able to shoot video, although I think I found a camera that will work okay now.  Also, my replications have quite frankly not shown anything different than the others yet, so nothing good to post about them.  My current replication is not done yet but is as exact as I am able to do so far to replicating Orbo.  Here's a couple photo's just to show I am working on the dual magnet version and the vertical toroidal coils.  It's obviously not done yet, and I do not even have the uprights attached yet or all the magnets installed.  But I just wanted to show the direction my replication is taking.  Hopefully I will at least get enough time to get it running in a day or so.

I don't see any true replication attempts.  The replication attempts I am seeing is people modifying the setup trying to improve on it or following their own ideas on trying to obtain the Orbo effect.  I have a feeling people are holding back the data on their experiments because they're not getting the expected results.  Of course not, because we're building and not replicating.

GB

Have to agree with GB, and coming from a scientific backround, the initial goal should be an exact replication.  Once that is achieved, then begin trying variations... 

It should be painfully obvious that the positioning of a coil by a millimeter one way or the other could decide success or failure... and when you've got 10s of millimeters as a possible position, the chances for INCORRECT positioning, and thus FAILURE, are far greater than getting it right.  This begs an exact replication first to verify operation, and then you can 'get creatve'...
-Mark