Regarding @alsetalokin's (TinselKoala) back emf (BEMF) experiment:

This is an example of bad science: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js24ZZ_6Je0.

Change of magnetic flux that is supposed to cause the BEMF, which is the main focus of attention here, is the change of flux caused by the pulses of current flowing through the coils. Thus, it is the emf causing these current pulses through the coils that is the subject of study here. Whether or not there is a permanent magnet nearby these coils is only a condition which may or may not change the studied emf. If that studied emf changes then there is BEMF generated. If that studied emf doesn’t change then there is no BEMF generated. In Steorn case the studied emf remained the same throughout the entire experiment despite the presence of permanent magnets near the coils and even despite their turning at various rotation rates.

Emphatically, the subject of study here is not the change of magnetic flux due to the motion of a permanent magnet that is supposed to cause emf (BEMF) in a nearby coil as the author of the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js24ZZ_6Je0 really wants us to believe. The gingerly activity of this author in the forum, supported by another ginger activist, will not change above fact and anyone caring for the scientific side of this debate should take note.

TK is a major idiot, emphasis on major.

If I didn't know any better I'd say he's earning his bread out of spreading disinfo. Notice how he is the first to have some sort of "replication" posted online only to debunk the case. This is classic tactics for setting a front for skepticism because any talk and debate from now on will be linked to his experiment "this can't work as claimed because this random dude on youtube proved it doesn't". For us true scientists we can see through this vail of deceit.

I already pointed out at his video that his experiment is a joke and that his assumptions and conclusions are far worse than the claims of his worst enemies.

Notice how Steorn uses exactly 4 toroids in series. Notice how Stefan correctly pointed out you can cancel counter emf by two toroids. I will bet one million dollars that Steorn's toroids are winded in reverse from toroid to toroid. This practically and theoretically eliminates any induced emf caused by the motion of the magnet. Not 100% since in practice you cannot have the same identical magnets, cores etc... but it's very close. Definitely not what the TK fraudster wants you to believe. This is not science he's performing but a circus act.

I'm not defending Steorn's OU claim since they have shown nothing about that so far. I'm only defending what they rightly said about induced emf in the coils. If the toroids are winded in reverse each time then there will be ZERO emf.

And still I wonder, Why did Sean find it necessary to reverse the polarity to the coils?

Just to show it would run the same direction with reversed polarity?
Or did it need to be reversed to operate correctly?

Things are either missing, or they just do things to mislead people.

.......
When the magnets approach the toroid a magnetic flux is generated on the toroid but the trick is this: a very
sharp pulse will flip the gate in the magnets causing them to repell from the toroid because of the...........

IMO, you don't want it to repel, that is wasting energy.  Pulse the toroid with just enough current where the rotor magnets will coast by the toroid core.  The Adams motor uses this same philosophy.  At higher RPM's the Orbo is much more efficient because the rotor magnets pass the core at a faster speed meaning your pulse duration is much shorter and using less energy at this higher RPM than at a lower RPM.

If you're repelling the rotor magnets with the pulse, then you won't be able to obtain the higher RPM's because your pulses will be longer in duration and nearly continuous at much lower RPM's.  You're not able to capture all of the potential momentum in repel mode.  The potential momentum is the rotor magnets being attracted to the toroid core.

Sometimes more is not always better.  It takes more energy to repel the rotor magnets with the toroid coil, than it takes to let the rotor magnets to pass, thus allowing you to achieve a higher RPM and to capture more momentum with less energy by not repelling.

GB

And still I wonder, Why did Sean find it necessary to reverse the polarity to the coils?

Just to show it would run the same direction with reversed polarity?
Or did it need to be reversed to operate correctly?

Things are either missing, or they just do things to mislead people.

Everything shown in the video is to instruct, cause a person to think and perhaps whether intended or not, to show clues as to how the basic device can operate me thinks.  If the losses in the coils are strictly resistive, lets lower the average current while maintaining speed in a bi-polarity operable unidirectional DC pulse motor!

Consider that series inductors have a finite amount of inductance (L1+L2+L3+L4) and in the battery, besides being a battery there is some capacitance  (C) and in the correct parallel circuit with some creative switching and at a certain rpm you would develop an AC waveform where there could develop a resonance with resultant average current dropping  and motor would keep running just as efficiently due to its ability to run on a polarity in either direction! A DC pulse, sort of resonant, very efficient AC motor! Just going way outside the box.  Perhaps we need to look at that battery's specifications a bit more.  Hope this isn't too wierd a concept to all.

Ben

Billmehess:

THIRD And this is exactly what happened in the Mylow debacle all kinds of ideas began to be proposed that maybe this really does work, maybe because of the toroids coils there is some wonderful and mystical thing occuring that negates all the laws of physics.

Bingo!  You hit it right on the head - in search of the "magic" configuration, again.

"If you don't use a cap, it's gotta be crap."

MileHigh

Thats right!

100% correct  MileHigh, charge up a cap with the battery then disconect the battery from the system. The motor will discharge the cap and the device will slow down and stop.This is so obvious a 5 year old should be able to see it.

It's a battery running a motor, replace the battery with a cap and it will run down and stop, it's really that simple.

A straight forward opinion.  Just to take the devils advocate, Bill What if it doesn't stop and what if it doesn't run down?? 

I have to say that over the years I have grown to hate ANY pulse OU device sustained by a battery because they will run you all around the barnyard but eventually all throw you in the pigsty....As all have stated that have even a slight clue as to the operation of pulse motors you simply replace the battery with a Cap. of low enough impedance to drive the coils and the capacity to give just a few pulses, run it up to "speed" on aux. power supply, then disconnect supply, run on cap only!.  IF the device is OU, it should run and maintain on the Cap. For every power pulse and charge reduction on the cap, there has to be a generated/generator pulse that is greater or equal in charge. Thats it, no more, no less.  2 pulses(one innie and one outie) into that high dollar scope integrating the total power in and out of the battery or Cap. The answer should be there. Forget the blarney, forget the BS, just do it.  One of the Tec's helping out there must know how to use that dam Cadillac of a scope!!!! All this could be demonstrated in 3-4 min in a clear concise and simple video.......All the rest is window dressing and loving to hear themselves talk.