Author Topic: Steorn's Patented Measuring Device & SKDB (Read 21975 times)

gravityblock · « **Reply #15 on:** April 02, 2010, 09:19:58 PM »

Quote from: exnihiloest on April 02, 2010, 03:10:43 PM

If this worked as specified, then it would be very very easy to build a PMM with a magnet rotor and asymmetric ferrite pieces around on a stator. No need of current. No need of coils.
Why does Steorn not build one and show us?

The anomaly in the PM Orbo, is rotation in one direction lead to a loss of the system's kinetic energy; rotation in the opposite direction lead to a gain in the system's kinetic energy.

Systems like this can be easily tested with a spin down test of the rotor without any magnetic interactions and with magnetic interactions. Spin the rotor to 300 RPM, then measure the spin down time with no magnetic interactions. Let's say this test has a spin down time of 90 seconds. Now, spin the rotor to 300 RPM, rotating CW and with magnetic interactions with the stator, then measure the spin down time with the rotor interacting with the stator. Let's say this test has a spin down time of 120 seconds. Do the previous test with it rotating CCW and take note of the spin down time. Let's say the spin down time is 60 seconds in this test.

Spin down time with no magnetic interactions = 90 seconds (Control Test)
Spin down time with magnetic interactions CW = 120 seconds (A gain of 30 seconds in kinetic energy)
Spin down time with magnetic interactions CCW = 60 seconds (A loss of 30 seconds in kinetic energy)

As you can see, there is a gain in kinetic energy in one direction, and a loss in kinetic energy in the other direction in this hypothetical experiment and this is the same claim for the PM Orbo. This anomaly in the PM Orbo, led to the creation of the eOrbo because there is a need for current and a need for coils. The eOrbo has led to research into a ssOrbo, with no moving parts. You don't understand the claims, you don't understand the experiments, and you don't understand the system itself.

GB

exnihiloest · « **Reply #16 on:** April 03, 2010, 05:36:21 PM »

Quote from: gravityblock on April 02, 2010, 09:19:58 PM

...
Spin down time with no magnetic interactions = 90 seconds (Control Test)
Spin down time with magnetic interactions CW = 120 seconds (A gain of 30 seconds in kinetic energy)
Spin down time with magnetic interactions CCW = 60 seconds (A loss of 30 seconds in kinetic energy)
...

Obviously it is not a proof of "gain". There are only more or less losses depending on the cases. And there are many possible reasons for that (not perfect ball bearings, asymetric forces influencing the frictions -only work is theorically symmetric-...).

gravityblock · « **Reply #17 on:** April 03, 2010, 09:17:13 PM »

Quote from: exnihiloest on April 03, 2010, 05:36:21 PM

Obviously it is not a proof of "gain". There are only more or less losses depending on the cases. And there are many possible reasons for that (not perfect ball bearings, asymetric forces influencing the frictions -only work is theorically symmetric-...).

The sticky spot during the magnetic interactions will slow the rotation, thus the rotation CW or CCW with magnetic interactions between the rotor and stator, having a sticky spot, should both be less than the control test of 90 seconds with no magnetic interactions or sticky spots. Do the control test both CW and CCW, to see if there are asymmetric forces influencing the frictions (this way you can be sure it's not influencing the experiment and that the spin down time is the same for both directions of rotation for the control test).

You should not have a gain of 30 seconds with sticky spots, over the control test that has no sticky spots. Air friction and friction from the bearings is irrelevant in this experiment, because all 3 tests were rotated to the same RPM of 300, which means all 3 tests has the same amount of friction.

In order for it to self-run, which would represent running for an infinite number of seconds, then you would need a COP of infinity. A spin down time of 135 seconds, which is a 45 second gain, represents a COP of 1.5 in my hypothetical test (above the control test of 90 seconds, is COP > 1). It is OU, but it's not able to self-run, without current, coils, and batteries to capture, to store, and to transfer this energy in order to close the loop and to feed this excess energy back into the input.

I am through with you. You do not contribute to this forum in anyway. Your arguments are baseless and you're always misinterpreting the results and data from an experiment. Please put me on your ignore list. I will not respond to any of your postings, from this point on.

GB

Omnibus · « **Reply #18 on:** April 03, 2010, 09:40:59 PM »

Quote from: exnihiloest on April 02, 2010, 02:37:45 PM

Your opinion also is stated. It is not the question.
This topic is not reserved to believers for repeating their act of faith, hoping it will make the reality.
The question is to say the truth about Steorn. There is no proof of OU but a erroneous calculus of energy balance: energy for aligning electron spins in the magnetic domains is accounting for losses! Hence Orbo principle is a hoax.

Steorn's creation may or may not be OU but you have proved (and are proving again in the above post) that you're incompetent to asses that. You have no place in these discussions.

maw2432 · « **Reply #19 on:** April 04, 2010, 02:34:10 PM »

Quote from: gravityblock on April 02, 2010, 09:19:58 PM

The anomaly in the PM Orbo, is rotation in one direction lead to a loss of the system's kinetic A; rotation in the opposite direction lead to a gain in the system's kinetic energy.

Systems like this can be easily tested with a spin down test of the rotor without any magnetic interactions and with magnetic interactions. Spin the rotor to 300 RPM, then measure the spin down time with no magnetic interactions. Let's say this test has a spin down time of 90 seconds. Now, spin the rotor to 300 RPM, rotating CW and with magnetic interactions with the stator, then measure the spin down time with the rotor interacting with the stator. Let's say this test has a spin down time of 120 seconds. Do the previous test with it rotating CCW and take note of the spin down time. Let's say the spin down time is 60 seconds in this test.

Spin down time with no magnetic interactions = 90 seconds (Control Test)
Spin down time with magnetic interactions CW = 120 seconds (A gain of 30 seconds in kinetic energy)
Spin down time with magnetic interactions CCW = 60 seconds (A loss of 30 seconds in kinetic energy)

As you can see, there is a gain in kinetic energy in one direction, and a loss in kinetic energy in the other direction in this hypothetical experiment and this is the same claim for the PM Orbo. This anomaly in the PM Orbo, led to the creation of the eOrbo because there is a need for current and a need for coils. The eOrbo has led to research into a ssOrbo, with no moving parts. You don't understand the claims, you don't understand the experiments, and you don't understand the system itself.

GB

GB, Thanks for the explanation. Are there any videos that demo this anomaly that show the gain in the spin down time? I would like to see this. Is this the anomaly that started Steorn's research?

Bill

gravityblock · « **Reply #20 on:** April 05, 2010, 08:21:55 AM »

Quote from: maw2432 on April 04, 2010, 02:34:10 PM

GB, Thanks for the explanation. Are there any videos that demo this anomaly that show the gain in the spin down time? I would like to see this. Is this the anomaly that started Steorn's research?

Bill

Orbo started its life as a measurement anomaly during the course of the development of a permanent magnetic micro-wind turbine. The anomaly in question related to a simple rotary interaction between permanent magnetic components. Rotation in one direction lead to a loss of the system's kinetic energy; rotation in the opposite direction lead to a gain the system's kinetic energy.

Steorn didn't use a spin down test to do their measurements. They used a magnetic torque measurement system instead. A gain in the system kinetic energy may not necessarily have a longer spin down time if it is doing work, and this is why Steorn measured the torque of the system to determine if there is a gain or loss in the kinetic energy. Measuring the torque is the proper way.

The skeptic is under the impression, if there is a gain in kinetic energy in the pmOrbo, then they could demonstrate a self-runner or OU without having to do measurements or the need to have a current and coils in the system, such as the eOrbo. This was the reason to use the hypothetical spin down tests to show how there could be a gain in kinetic energy without it being a continuous self-runner.

GB

exnihiloest · « **Reply #21 on:** April 07, 2010, 10:30:22 AM »

Quote from: Omnibus on April 03, 2010, 09:40:59 PM

...you have proved (and are proving again in the above post) that you're incompetent to asses that. You have no place in these discussions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Omnibus · « **Reply #22 on:** April 07, 2010, 10:36:41 AM »

Quote from: exnihiloest on April 07, 2010, 10:30:22 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Wikipedia won't make you more competent. You need real education to have the nerve to pass judgement on scientific matters.

exnihiloest · « **Reply #23 on:** April 07, 2010, 11:53:03 AM »

Quote from: Omnibus on April 07, 2010, 10:36:41 AM

Wikipedia won't make you more competent. You need real education to have the nerve to pass judgement on scientific matters.

but Wikipedia perfectly explains your inconsistent attitude
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

exnihiloest · « **Reply #24 on:** April 07, 2010, 11:59:00 AM »

Quote from: gravityblock on April 03, 2010, 09:17:13 PM

The sticky spot during the magnetic interactions will slow the rotation, thus the rotation CW or CCW with magnetic interactions between the rotor and stator, having a sticky spot, should both be less than the control test of 90 seconds with no magnetic interactions or sticky spots.

The sticky spot slows the rotation only when the magnet is moving away. When it is approaching, it is accelerated, leaving us with a null overall effect.
Thus with a perfect device, the rotation CW or CCW with magnetic interactions should be the same like without interactions.

Quote

...
You should not have a gain of 30 seconds with sticky spots, over the control test that has no sticky spots.

The sticky spot induces large radial forces. If the diametrically opposed forces are not exactly balanced (and imho it is very hard to maintain a perfect symmetry on 360Â°), there is a non null radial resultant force onto the axis, that can significantly change the frictions.

Quote

In order for it to self-run, which would represent running for an infinite number of seconds, then you would need a COP of infinity.
...

It is non sense due to your confusion between "gain" and "less losses".
What you say is the same as saying that replacing a coil of resistance R by a identical coil of resistance R' with R'<R, gives gain and is OU when it is just reducing losses!

Quote

I am through with you. You do not contribute to this forum in anyway. Your arguments are baseless and you're always misinterpreting the results and data from an experiment.

Your regular ad hominem attacks mean that you have no solid rational arguments. Sorry if my messages, coming from a critical and scientific thought, are the cause of shaken faith syndromes among devout believers.

Quote

Please put me on your ignore list. I will not respond to any of your postings, from this point on.

Only the scientific truth matters to me. I reply about what is written and not about who was writing. When I estimate that untruths are written, I give my position independently of who wrote them. It is a question of intellectual honesty, not a question of individuals.

Omnibus · « **Reply #25 on:** April 07, 2010, 12:01:50 PM »

Quote from: exnihiloest on April 07, 2010, 11:53:03 AM

but Wikipedia perfectly explains your inconsistent attitude
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Oh, yea, says who? The incompetent.

Omnibus · « **Reply #26 on:** April 07, 2010, 12:09:27 PM »

Quote

Only the scientific truth matters to me. I reply about what is written and not about who was writing. When I estimate that untruths are written, I give my position independently of who wrote them. It is a question of intellectual honesty, not a question of individuals.

You have no qualifications to judge one way or another. Learn physics systematically first and then come here to express opinions. Semi-educated elements such as you are the greatest nuisance in the matters we're discussing here and only clog the exchange.

gravityblock · « **Reply #27 on:** April 09, 2010, 01:03:14 PM »

Make your own Dynamometer using an old scroll usb mouse, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSnnX1FwiWQ Youtube user, Eltimple, is a member of Steorn's SKDB.

A dynamometer, is a device for simultaneously measuring torque and rotational speed (rpm), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamometer

GB

gravityblock · « **Reply #28 on:** April 09, 2010, 01:56:06 PM »

Detailed information and software to build the home-made Dynamo-meter from an USB mouse, http://sci-spot.com/Mechanical/dyno.htm

The software continuously plots RPM, Torque, and Power. It can export torque and power Vs. RPM curves to excel in .csv format.

Software, http://sci-spot.com/Mechanical/dyno.zip

GB

wings · « **Reply #29 on:** April 09, 2010, 05:29:13 PM »

Quote from: gravityblock on April 09, 2010, 01:56:06 PM

Detailed information and software to build the home-made Dynamo-meter from an USB mouse, http://sci-spot.com/Mechanical/dyno.htm

The software continuously plots RPM, Torque, and Power. It can export torque and power Vs. RPM curves to excel in .csv format.

Software, http://sci-spot.com/Mechanical/dyno.zip

GB

I suspect this project will not allow to measure the torque.
This system does not use a clutch or a torquemeter.
In this case we can measure the torque only during acceleration knowing the moments of inertia of rotating mass.

see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamometer

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Steorn's Patented Measuring Device & SKDB (Read 21975 times)

gravityblock

Re: Steorn's Patented Measuring Device & SKDB

exnihiloest

Re: Steorn's Patented Measuring Device & SKDB

gravityblock

Re: Steorn's Patented Measuring Device & SKDB

Omnibus

Re: Steorn's Patented Measuring Device & SKDB

maw2432

Re: Steorn's Patented Measuring Device & SKDB

gravityblock

Re: Steorn's Patented Measuring Device & SKDB

exnihiloest

Re: Steorn's Patented Measuring Device & SKDB

Omnibus

Re: Steorn's Patented Measuring Device & SKDB

exnihiloest

Re: Steorn's Patented Measuring Device & SKDB

exnihiloest

Re: Steorn's Patented Measuring Device & SKDB

Omnibus

Re: Steorn's Patented Measuring Device & SKDB

Omnibus

Re: Steorn's Patented Measuring Device & SKDB

gravityblock

Re: Steorn's Patented Measuring Device & SKDB

gravityblock

Re: Steorn's Patented Measuring Device & SKDB

wings

Re: Steorn's Patented Measuring Device & SKDB