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

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: STEORN DEMO LIVE & STREAM in Dublin, December 15th, 10 AM  (Read 1198072 times)

IceStorm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
Re: STEORN DEMO LIVE & STREAM in Dublin, December 15th, 10 AM
« Reply #300 on: December 22, 2009, 07:44:12 PM »
I never said anything about Power or torque in my example.  My example was meant to figure out how long it would take a battery to discharge in a controlled experiment.  It is the same as putting a resistor on a fully charged cap and seeing how long it takes to discharge across the resistor.  This is a good way to figure out how much energy is in the battery so you can make your comparisons.  Obviously you missed the entire point.

GB



Here you talk about 750 rpm , 2 motor with no LOAD on the shaft , one take 3 time the amount of the other one in power.Take your example and look at what i wrote about the rotoverter so Idle speed mean nothing  to evaluate the TORQUE (MECHANICAL POWER) because THERE NO LOAD,

If a motor runs @ 750rpm for 10 hours with drawing a constant current from a battery, then building a motor that runs @ 750rpm for 30 hours from a same type battery is cop = 3 in mechanical energy gained vs electrical energy expended.

You have gained 3 times more mechanical energy than what the battery is capable of producing.  The additional energy gained was mechanical energy and was expended in the additional 20 hours of mechanical motion instead of being converted to electrical energy. 
.....


GB

And here you talk about the coils in motor who act as load. if both motor is the same, first one is a rotoverter the second one is a normal one (both identical motor spec) , first one can be 50W idle and the second one 300W idle at SAME speed but the TORQUE it can deliver will not be the same because the PF is not the same, on the rotoverter one the VAR is bigger than the normal one, so less current input at the expense of torque.

If both motors have coils with the same load on the battery, then the RPM is relative in both systems and is not absolutely nothing.  A coil is a load on the battery, is it not?  This means both motors in my example have the same load!

GB

Now tell me how you can evaluate if motor 1 is better than motor 2 ? no one deliver any power , they just idle so current input is absolutly nothing.

Best Regards,
IceStorm

gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3287
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: STEORN DEMO LIVE & STREAM in Dublin, December 15th, 10 AM
« Reply #301 on: December 22, 2009, 08:27:23 PM »
IceStorm,

I'm not trying to figure out power or torque.  Power correction devices don't lower the amount of energy being consumed by a device, they help the watt hour meter to more accurately calculate the correct amount of energy used by a device.  The watt hour meter does not calculate energy consumed correctly and the end result is the consumer is billed for energy they didn't use.  The total amount of energy actually consumed is the same with or without the power correction device.  Calculating energy in vs energy out is not as cut and dry as you may think.

GB

Cloxxki

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1083
Re: STEORN DEMO LIVE & STREAM in Dublin, December 15th, 10 AM
« Reply #302 on: December 22, 2009, 08:48:29 PM »
If mass of a motor is great, and friction low, a slightly better battery or circuit can give hugely longer running times. Time will be spend more running the thing, than power is used to start up.
The other way around, a lightweight motor with high friction, that is more like a load. 10% more runtime, means ~10% more efficiency, or capacity.

PaulLowrance

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
    • Global Free Energy
Re: STEORN DEMO LIVE & STREAM in Dublin, December 15th, 10 AM
« Reply #303 on: December 22, 2009, 08:54:57 PM »
Lets just give Steorn a chance to prove it. If they're a scam, then they have their day coming. If investors have given money without proof, LOL, geez, then that's going to be big lesson for them. I have not given Steorn a dime, and I would *NEVER* sign any NDA.

Supposedly January is the big month they're going to prove it.

IceStorm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
Re: STEORN DEMO LIVE & STREAM in Dublin, December 15th, 10 AM
« Reply #304 on: December 22, 2009, 09:52:52 PM »
IceStorm,

I'm not trying to figure out power or torque.  Power correction devices don't lower the amount of energy being consumed by a device, they help the watt hour meter to more accurately calculate the correct amount of energy used by a device.  The watt hour meter does not calculate energy consumed correctly and the end result is the consumer is billed for energy they didn't use.  The total amount of energy actually consumed is the same with or without the power correction device.  Calculating energy in vs energy out is not as cut and dry as you may think.

GB

Again some more non sense, PF CORRECTION do lower the input power , that don't mean the load will get LESS power , that mean the INPUT POWER will be less , look here : http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_11/4.html and go to 2/3, look for :

"This correction, of course, will not change the amount of true power consumed by the load, but it will result in a substantial reduction of apparent power, and of the total current drawn from the 240 Volt source:"

And dont change your non sense by saying "I'm not trying to figure out power or torque" because you should look at this post your wrote, look at what is in bold:

If a motor runs @ 750rpm for 10 hours with drawing a constant current from a battery, then building a motor that runs @ 750rpm for 30 hours from a same type battery is cop = 3 in mechanical energy gained vs electrical energy expended.

You have gained 3 times more mechanical energy than what the battery is capable of producing.  The additional energy gained was mechanical energy and was expended in the additional 20 hours of mechanical motion instead of being converted to electrical energy. 


RPM at idle MEAN NOTHING , i showed you that with the analogy with the rotoverter for 2 identical motor , one with rotoverter modification and the order one normal, at IDLE the speed can be the same but the POWER consumption WILL NOT BE. so discharge your battery as you wich , that will never tell you if you are COP = 3 because THERE NO LOAD on the shaft.
Best Regards,
IceStorm

gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3287
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: STEORN DEMO LIVE & STREAM in Dublin, December 15th, 10 AM
« Reply #305 on: December 22, 2009, 10:20:51 PM »
If a motor runs @ 750rpm for 10 hours with drawing a constant current from a battery, then building a motor that runs @ 750rpm for 30 hours from a same type battery is cop = 3 in mechanical energy gained vs electrical energy expended.

If you converted only half of this mechanical energy that is gained (10hrs) into electrical energy, then you have COP = 1 in electrical energy gained vs electrical energy expended with 10 hours of additional mechanical momentum to keep producing this additional energy to keep it above unity.  There is no hidden source of energy being tapped in this system.  The additional source of energy is capturing all of the potential momentum instead of killing it like we've all been doing.

GB

@IceStorm,

Look at the two words in bold print starting each paragraph, the two "if's".  It was a hypothetical and was not based on a real result.  The entire post was based on a hypothetical.  The COP = 3 in mechanical energy was a hypothetical result and not based on a real world device.  This hypothetical can be carried out in the real world though, but the results will vary from device to device.  This hypothetical was to show you can have mechanical overunity while still draining the battery and not achieving electrical OU.

I'll let you have the last word on this because you are twisting and reading everything out of context while not grasping anything from what is written in my posts or in the link to the "allaboutcircuits" site.  You lack severely in "reading comprehension".  In addition to those reasons, it is off-topic from this discussion and I will not participate in hijacking this thread any longer.

Take care,

GB

lumen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1388
Re: STEORN DEMO LIVE & STREAM in Dublin, December 15th, 10 AM
« Reply #306 on: December 22, 2009, 10:45:22 PM »
@IceStorm,

Try not thinking negative, always think positive!
Think, If this does not work, then what would it need to make it work.
When thinking positive, you can hope to see the light. To think negative and you are assured to see only darkness.
Everyone already knows it can't be done! But in time there is always one case that does not fit the norm.


MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: STEORN DEMO LIVE & STREAM in Dublin, December 15th, 10 AM
« Reply #307 on: December 22, 2009, 11:16:35 PM »
Lumen:

Quote
All cases huh?  So I guess you have built every single pulsing circuit that could ever be conceived and tested all these without success?  You are pretty damn good!

That is the attitude that is all wrong.  It's all about understanding what the circuit is doing.  This notion of looking for the "magic" pulsing circuit is wrong, and what is implicit in what you are saying is that you can go on testing different setups forever.  You just have to learn and apply your knowledge.

Quote
Sorry I don't do debunking, I build to make things work, not to prove things don't work, we have a team of debunkers for that, to tell us how it can't work, how it's not possible, and how it will never be done.  Same with people who said it was impossible to build a rocket and travel to the moon.

You build things to understand how they work, it is not a question of proving one thing or another.  Understanding is the key.

The "Flat Earth" argument is an old cliche.  The real people with understanding said it was possible to build a rocket and go to the moon, not the opposite as you are implying.  Same thing for powered flight.

Gravityblock:

Quote
Classical theory claims Intrinsic inductance is a linear function of wire length and independent of wire diameter. According to the classical understanding of inductance, if we construct two circular loops of wire, both with the same loop shape, but with different wire gauge, then both should have the same inductance. But this is not the case and can be seen in the results below.  Since the thickness of wire does affect the intrinsic inductance, then the classical model for intrinsic inductance is incorrect.

You are absolutely wrong here and the statement that you make in your first sentence is wrong.  You should check out the Hyperphysics web site.  I am will assume that you have never sat through derivations in a class room where you calculate the magnetic field at any distance from an infinite length of wire of radius r with a current i traveling through it, or what the magnetic field is  anywhere in free space for a loop of wire of wire radius r1 and loop radius r2.  If you haven't, chances are that stuff will blow your mind.  Your attempts to point out weaknesses in the classical model fall flat.

Quote
Also, the magnetic field around a moving charge is not toroidal or donut shaped as taught.  Simple experiments shows the magnetic field is spherical around the moving charges.  I could go on and on about how classical theory has it wrong and is incomplete also.  Classical theory can't even get the basic stuff right, and simple experiments clearly shows this.

You wish.  You are completely out of your league here and are completely off the mark.  This stuff is so well understood that it takes years of education to just understand the explanation for what's really going on.

Going back to Steorn, the "believers" as well as the people making all of the wild speculations about the magnetic effects, how many of them have made a comment about just using a capacitor to prove or disprove Steorn's claim?  Not many I don't think.

I challenge all of you to chime in, should Steorn use a capacitor in their demo or not?

MileHigh

kmarinas86

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
    • YouTube - kmarinas86's Channel
Re: STEORN DEMO LIVE & STREAM in Dublin, December 15th, 10 AM
« Reply #308 on: December 22, 2009, 11:31:23 PM »
Steorn is crap.

'Nuff said

PaulLowrance

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
    • Global Free Energy
Re: STEORN DEMO LIVE & STREAM in Dublin, December 15th, 10 AM
« Reply #309 on: December 22, 2009, 11:33:22 PM »
Just found out Sean has been making a lot of posts at his forum recently. Here are a few interesting posts regarding the technology,

Quote
Ok - I agree that a great way to see if the system has CEMF is to test it as a generator - and we will be including that in the next experiment.

As for there being current through the coils when we say its turned off - thats just nonsence, but again we will make the switch from the power supply a lot more clear in the next one.

As for shorter and longer pulses - I assume that you are reffering to induction losses through the interaction - and there are none (in fact there is a greater energy returned from the field collapse than there is energy put into the field creation) - but THAT is the next experiment, so lets see.

Quote
"Eddy currents in the core - how do you measure them"

Well you could just use a nonconducting core and then not have them at all.         

Quote
"I think the main basic thing people are waiting for is the input voltage/current along side the output voltage/current. I take it this will be included in 2010 demonstrations?"

Yes

Quote
"That vibration does have my attention over all the other claims."

Its the nature of the bearings that we are using.

Quote
"Will you be "redoing" the experiments before or after Christmas? (Never mind, I see you said January)"

Not sure on the date, but it will be prior to Jan 10th (we may do two experiments together - will have to look at the practicality of this).

Quote
Ok the first sequence of experiments are about showing that in eOrbo all the input energy goes to output as Joule heating (no back emf, no induction losses) and yet work is still done by the rotor. The second sequence is total input energy, total output energy and the energy of the system itself.

Quote
"Why have the demo "Orbo"s been changed out occasionally, was this due to "issues",,, or is that in some way a future part of the demonstration?"

Its been asked (and answered) - we made a call to use reed switches - they are across an inductive load and flyback dioide or not there is still a high failure rate.

Quote
"You've mentioned that the overall thermodynamic efficiency of the system is about 3X. Shall we take that to mean, that if 10W (avg./cont.) battery power input is measured, calorimetry would indicate a heat flow of 30W (avg./cont.)?"

It means that for the type of system shown to date, 1J of elec input will produce circa 3J of output (heat, work done by the rotor and electrical) - but again this has yet to be proven, and it will - but I will not open the Xmas presents early.

PaulLowrance

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
    • Global Free Energy
Re: STEORN DEMO LIVE & STREAM in Dublin, December 15th, 10 AM
« Reply #310 on: December 22, 2009, 11:45:15 PM »
A few more recent Sean quotes I missed in my last post,

Quote
"Can we expect some independent, 3rd party, validation of your device as a part of the demo in January?"

You sure can.

Quote
Ok what is rubbish about the video was the simple fact that this guy knows that there is CEMF present in his test, but hides it with the scale of his scope traces. So its not a rebuttal at all - its clearly someone playing games.

So does he have a point behind the sillyness - perhaps there are supporting methods that can be used to show that there is no CEMF, including but not limited to the current reversal that I believe he may have decided to leave out because perhaps its a bit more difficult to do a fraudulent debunk? - and indeed you will see these in the next experiment.

The difference of course in all this is what we are dealing with in the so called "rebuttal" is a simple method to debunk through deception - so be it - not a lot I can do about that - lets see if the fella can con the next version of the experiment - as I said it will be pretty amusing anyway,


gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3287
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: STEORN DEMO LIVE & STREAM in Dublin, December 15th, 10 AM
« Reply #311 on: December 23, 2009, 12:47:37 AM »
There is an erroneous expression for the self inductance of a loop of diameter ‘a’ and wire thickness ‘b’ found in the book Classical Electrodynamics 3rd edition.  Reviewing the derivation we find that this expression is actually the mutual inductance between two parallel loops of radius ‘a’ separated by distance b.  Oooopsss, and it mis-leads the masses because nobody is able to think and have a mind of their own, lol.

Classical Electromagnetism predicts electromagnetic “Hot Spots” at the corners of rectangular loops. These Hot Spots are not seen in the lab. Consider a square loop of wire that contains a constant current. The current at the corners changes direction 90 degrees; this is effectively a changing current.  By applying classical electromagnetic equations, we derive the effect of this current change on a test charge located just above the corner.  Experimentation shows that there are no detectable corner effects. The spherical field completely cancels these corner effects.

The toroidal magnetic field of classical electromagnetism does not predict
the existence of longitudinal electromagnetic propagation. As such, the
classical models do not predict reception off the ends of a dipole antenna.
In fact, without longitudinal waves, the classical models are not even close to the measured radiation patterns.  The reason is that the classical models do not predict magnetic effects in the longitudinal direction because the Biot-Savart field model of magnetism is a transverse only model.

In the classical electromagnetic theory of light (Maxwell’s Equations) only
transverse electromagnetic waves are anticipated. Yet in all other media in
which waves propagate, they propagate in both longitudinal and transverse modes. Why does classical electromagnetism only predict transverse waves?  The answer is that classical electromagnetism views magnetism as a transverse only field phenomenon.  The spherical field model readily predicts wave propagation in both longitudinal and transverse modes.



GB






MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: STEORN DEMO LIVE & STREAM in Dublin, December 15th, 10 AM
« Reply #312 on: December 23, 2009, 01:30:19 AM »
Gravityblock:

I am not going to rebut your examples except to say that I am not aware of transverse waves being an issue.  When EM radiation propagates the electrical and magnetic fields are at right angles to each other.  So if "z" is the transverse direction because the electric or magnetic wave is traveling and oscillating back and forth in the direction of z, then the complimentary electric or magnetic wave can be aligned in any direction in the x-y plane.  Transverse waves are not anything special that I am aware of.

The determination of what the electric or magnetic field looks like (magnitude and direction) at any point in time and at any place in space is very well understood, but I am not a microwave engineer so I can't say much more than that.

MileHigh

broli

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2245
Re: STEORN DEMO LIVE & STREAM in Dublin, December 15th, 10 AM
« Reply #313 on: December 23, 2009, 02:16:55 AM »
I'm not exactly sure what they mean by capturing more inductive energy than is put in. There are two possible cases:

1) When they capture the collapsing field more inductive energy is captured than used. From their scope traces we can estimate that the inductive energy is 1/5 of the whole pulse. While 4/5 is ohmic and irreversibly lost as heat. This would explain why Sean keeps mentioning the heat energy.

2) When they capture the collapsing field more energy is gained than inductive+ohmic combined. This feat would be very amazing in itself. As the mechanical energy becomes a bonus.

Can someone please forward this or bring it up on their forum to get an answer from them. It would be very interesting and enlighting to know which case they are referring to.

lumen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1388
Re: STEORN DEMO LIVE & STREAM in Dublin, December 15th, 10 AM
« Reply #314 on: December 23, 2009, 02:26:30 AM »
Broli,

I didn't think they were capturing any of the flyback from the pulse to the toroidal coils.
I understood it to be the generator at the top that was recovering all the losses.

Recovering the flyback from the toroidal coils would be a plus if it is possible.