The Steorn magnetic motor replication by JL Naudin

Originally posted by MajorDisaster
reply to post by LightFantastic

 

But supposing they have found a way to eliminate the back-EMF, then theoretically they should be able to set up the rotor to generate power and it would be overunity would it not?

Well, no. It would get you closer to unity, however you would still have losses due to friction etc. To have over-unity you must generate energy, not just eliminate losses.

Not that I think for a minute that they have actually eliminated back-EMF.

Since the back-EMF is what usually causes huge losses of energy?

Huge? You can get electrical motors that are 98% efficient, so not huge.

reply to post by MajorDisaster


The generators used in power generation are already very efficient at approx 92-97%

Originally posted by MajorDisaster

But supposing they have found a way to eliminate the back-EMF, then theoretically they should be able to set up the rotor to generate power and it would be overunity would it not? Since the back-EMF is what usually causes huge losses of energy?

This is where the snake oil becomes truly evident for me - 'elimination of back-EMF' which is a term bandied about like 'zero-point energy' with the difference that back-EMF is absolutely real beyond doubt. It only gets the name 'back-EMF' in relation to motors but it is present in all electrical machines including generators so perhaps some clarification in simple terms is required to understand it.

What is back-EMF?
We're all aware that moving a conductor across the plane of a magnetic flux will induce a potential difference in that conductor so another term for it is 'self generation' and it's proportional to the speed of the conductor and the magnetic flux density, peaking when the conductor crosses the lines of flux at right angles. In the case of a motor, the back-EMF is in opposition to the applied EMF but that does NOT equate to huge losses of energy because, in the case of a motor, the back-EMF is always less than the applied EMF and only serves to regulate the applied current as the speed increases (back-EMF rises with speed). At maximum no-load speed the back-EMF is at maximum and the input current is consequently at a minimum.

A generator is actually back-EMF being utilised in converting mechanical energy into electrical energy and virtuall any motor can be driven as a generator. In the case of non-synchronous motors, all that is needed is to drive the motor (via an external energy input) at a speed faster than its natural no-load maximum which produces a back-EMF exceeding the applied EMF - resulting in energy being produced rather than being consumed. In synchronous machines the principle is a little different only due to the fact that such machines must rotate at fixed speeds related to the number of poles and applied system frequency so the distinction between motor and generator mode is expressed in the 'load angle' of the rotor IE the amount by which the rotor poles lag (motor) the synchronous stator RMF (rotating magnetic field) or lead (generator).

Back-EMF is only detrimental to efficiency if it can induce a current opposing that of the applied EMF because EMFs do not directly produce magnetic fields, currents do and producing a current requires an EMF plus a complete circuit. Electro-magnetic field strength is purely a function of current and the number of turns in the winding (ampere-turns).

Dynamic braking is a good example of a practical use of back-EMF and electric cars now make use of that to return some of the kinetic energy of motion to the batteries when reducing speed. It's also employed on electric railways where, on steep inclines, it's more efficient to have one train descending the slope while another is ascending and energy is simply transferred between the 2 and only losses need be supplied via the network.

Bottom line: Back-EMF is being unnecessarily demonised in order to support some sensational claims but I'm not buying it without sensational proof.

reply to post by Pilgrum


Wow, well thanks for taking the time to explain all that to dummies like me, hehe

So I'm still not seeing how the Steorn motor, or JLN's replication, is supposed to be an actual source of energy.

Do djcubed or any of the SKDB guys have any comment?

Originally posted by MajorDisaster
reply to post by Pilgrum

 

So I'm still not seeing how the Steorn motor, or JLN's replication, is supposed to be an actual source of energy.

Me neither:

I think Steorn:
- Got excited that their motor ran at such a speed on so little power
- Thought that their design would be able to extract power using the motor section in reverse without any "magnetic drag"

I think JLN:
- Created a proof of concept model of the Steorn motor design and posted his experiment
- Didn't notice that his MOSFET had a free-wheel diode.
- Didn't measure the current through his coils as he turned them on and off. There will be a back-emf pulse when he turns these off.

You will notice that on JLNs sites there a few if any failed experiments. He isn't describing a COP > 1, just that a simple motor design spins. I have respect for JLN and have dealt with him in the past. I don't think he deliberately fakes anything but may be selective in what he posts.

The time it takes these motors to spin up to their no load speed demonstrates the lack of torque.

Steorn probably made the classic OU inventor mistake of equating rotational speed or torque alone as as indication of power. Both are needed to calculate the output power. There is another "OU" motor by Joe Newman that is the opposite - low speed and high torque.

PS I am glad too that Pilgrum took the time to explain Back EMF. I am far too lazy / busy! I also didn't know about the trains.



[edit on 4/1/2010 by LightFantastic]

reply to post by enacae

I watched the video. IMO, this is a good example of what not to do in a demonstration.

• He constantly repeats the same phrases over and over, phrases which mean nothing such as
  • "This is the only prototype like this in the world"
    
  • "It is like a wave"
    
  • "This is a strong magnet"
  
  
• The prototype is built so that the operation itself is difficult to see. He has an impressively small and intricate design, but that intricacy actually hurts his demonstration by hiding many of the components.
  
  
• He spends way too much time focusing on some things which do not need much focus (the batteries and the motor), and little to no time focusing on the actual invention.
  
  
• There are no specifics in his description. He says a magnet is a "strong magnet", for instance. How strong? What is the flux rating? What is the polarity? What determines the needed strength? That is what we need to know, not that it is a "strong magnet". Strong is subjective.
  
  
• At one point, he mentions that the arms are being repelled by the magnets, but never does he indicate (nor could I see in the demonstration video) is a magnet was attached to those arms. If there is no magnet in the arms, how is the arm repelled by a magnet?
  
  
• There is no descriptive detail as to the theory behind his model.
  
  
• There is no indication of how the coils are hooked up, even though he does mention them as somehow playing a part in his theory. If they are not hooked up, why are they even there? If they are hooked up to something, it is apparently something in the center of the unit where it is (again) hidden.
  
  
• How are the coils sized? How many turns of what gauge wire are used? What is the diameter of the core? How critical are these parameters?
  
  
• The camera is shaky and erratic, indicating that he did not have a good idea in his mind as to what he wanted to show about the prototype. He is making it up as he goes along.

A demonstration prototype must be repeatable. I should be able to replicate his work myself to verify his demonstration. I cannot. There is simply not enough information there to do so. Compare this video presentation to those of the Steorn motor, wherein measurements are given and the theory itself is explained using a model made primarily of a clear plastic.

TheRedneck


[edit on 1/4/2010 by TheRedneck]

reply to post by Pilgrum


Correct. In my designs, theoretical ones anyway, the area under the power curve for back-EMF is supposed to exceed the area during the exciter stage.

Edit to add a citation for this source.

Since I have last looked it is heavily redacted. Perhaps he was spooked by a spook

[edit on 1/4/2010 by Matyas]

reply to post by Matyas


Interesting article you linked to there and I need to digest the concepts

Also you mention the 'power under the curve' which I believe is the key to understanding what's going on with these supposed overunity devices (Steorn and Bedini). The voltage/current readings used to indicate extroardinary properties are being taken with instruments that don't read true RMS values with extremely non-sinusoidal waveforms although I have to agree that doesn't explain all of the claimed properties.

A lot of the Bedini type results actually mirror my own experiments with desulphation of lead-acid batteries using very short high current spikes. I was not working on anything remotely OU btw, but simply trying to improve the condition of deteriorated cells and it does work but it's too slow to be of any real practical use (breaking up of accumulated lead sulphate crystal deposits).

Originally posted by enacae
I am far from an expert in this field, but I do think that the gentleman in this video is really on to something here. I have seen many many videos on over unity designs and this guy is really on to something. Here it is.

I'm sorry, but this guy is just silly with this contraption. He has a small battery, powering a small motor, that turns and moves a series of magnets. There isn't anything going on here at all, not from what I can see. This is nothing like a true over-unity device, not by any stretch of the imagination.

If he had the magnets turning the motor that would be different, but all we have here is a mechanism that makes a lot of useless oscillation. I think it is funny how he says it's like a nuclear reactor! That is just so ridiculous it's really quite funny

If anyone has read any of my other threads, I am a believer in designs like Bedini and others of similar vain, but this guy is just not even in the same category. His appears to truly be a Rube Goldberg device.

If you want to see a real device that has true commercial use, check out this company:



These guys seem to be the real deal.



[edit on 4-1-2010 by downisreallyup]

Originally posted by downisreallyup
If anyone has read any of my other threads, I am a believer in designs like Bedini and others of similar vain
If you want to see a real device that has true commercial use, check out this company:
These guys seem to be the real deal.

I have tested a number of Bedini variants in the past and all were under unity.

The EBM device is interesting but they give little information. Also I note that they haven't updated any of their data since Jan 2007. I was pleased their unit was shown in a calorimeter which means they were probably testing properly.

They certainly appear to have invested a large amount of money on a range of expensive prototypes. Most proper investors perform their due diligence very well and wouldn't invest in the next stage if the first prototypes didn't work. They would use external engineers to confirm this.

There was another company that disappeared called RQM ("Raum Quantum Motoren") that produced something similar and eventually produced a solid state version.

The question remains "where are EBM" now? Why can't I buy one? Where does the excess energy come from?



[edit on 5/1/2010 by LightFantastic]

Originally posted by LightFantastic
I have tested a number of Bedini variants in the past and all were under unity.

Have you really? With Bedini's permission?

Can we see your research data? Did you happen to film yourself taking the measurements and stuff or will we have to just take your word for it?

reply to post by MajorDisaster

Bedini's permission is not required to build and test his design. The only restriction there is to commercially promote his design. Building a replica and testing it, as well as publishing the results of such tests, is allowed as proper peer review. This was legally assumed to be allowed as soon as he published the design.

It is the same legal philosophy that allows me to build and operate a private signal decoder to obtain free TV and PPV service. I cannot disseminate any information about such a device, including plans, assembly instructions, explanations of how do accomplish it, or even parts lists, but if I can design and build a device on my own I can legally use it.

If I want to build and sell a motor based on Bedini's design, or if I want to sell information on how to build such a device, I would need written permission from Bedini (I am assuming his design is patented; if not, it is public domain and no permission is needed for anything).

Also, I found a very interesting video browsing through YouTube's massive labyrinth of attempts to produce free energy. This one may have promise:


TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Also, I found a very interesting video browsing through YouTube's massive labyrinth of attempts to produce free energy. This one may have promise:

just a hoax, Simply moving a magnet near a group of magnets doesn't cause spinning

Originally posted by downisreallyup
Listen man, you really don't know anything about this. Just your comment about the battery JUST being a DC source shows how blind and deaf you are to what is being shown and said. I will try to say it LOUD AND CLEAR, and hopefully your eyes will allow you to read the words, and to have that thick paradigm filter in your brain penetrated by them

Before you analyze patterns in my brain, indeed, feel free to sound "loud and clear", in case you think it'll help you to sound intelligent.

OK, you imply that a battery IS NOT an electrochemical device. That it itself is soaking up some sort of energy from the vacuum. I'm sorry but here isn't even 1% of detail to form a complete system out of these assumption (as voodoo system as it can be). You read posts in this thread, where people get the same impression. Basically, the claim is there there is a magic kind of invisible physics taking place in batteries.

let's call it DARK ENERGY and LIGHT ENERGY, if that makes you feel more comfortable

It makes me scared that stone age mentality surfaces in a 21 century forum

(you have read about those in Physics mags, right?)

I learned physics using textbooks, not "mags".

Now, you can't just use Dark Energy in its present form. It has to be CONVERTED, CHANGED, MODIFIED, SWITCHED to a usable form.

And what magic property of the battery (which is a jar with electrolyte and a couple of electrodes) makes THAT possible?

Are you still following? I know this really blows all those THICK paradigm barriers you have erected in your brain, but please, for your own growth, try to break through them!

I get a kick when I observe an ignoramus talking in voodoo terms to somebody who spent more times around circuits, batteries and the like than a lot of people and being condescending at that.

[edit on 5-1-2010 by buddhasystem]

reply to post by dereks

Quite possibly a hoax. However, I could not explain what I saw, even in terms of illusionary tricks. Can you?

Maybe I could take an afternoon and build one, just to see...

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Maybe I could take an afternoon and build one, just to see...

Please do!!

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by dereks

Quite possibly a hoax. However, I could not explain what I saw, even in terms of illusionary tricks. Can you?

Yes I can. What's definitely used in this device is a magnetic switch. These are often pretty small and easily concealed. Another component is a button battery hidden either in the body of the motor or fixed right to the base of the light bulb. Once the magnet is in the vicinity of the device, the contact closes the circuit and the current powers both the motor and the lamp.

The video is too blurry to be certain, but I think the switch can also be installed "in-line" with the wire and covered in plastic tape (look at the left part of the device right before it runs).


[edit on 5-1-2010 by buddhasystem]

reply to post by buddhasystem


A Reed switch?

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

A Reed switch?

Yes. Sorry -- English isn't my mother tongue.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Hmmm, pretty good observations... There is something small, round and shiny on the back of the motor after assembly that is not there before assembly. Before assembly, the back of the motor has a round offset in the center; after assembly the offset has moved to the side: quite possibly a button cell.

I had considered a hidden button cell, but I had not noticed that the offset had moved.

As to the reed switch... I dunno about that. One of the wires does bend toward the 'trigger' magnet, but a reed switch in that position would not allow a button cell to power both the motor and the light. They would be in series. A miniature light bulb typically requires 1.5V and up as does the typical hobby motor such as he is using. If connected in parallel with a 1.5V button cell, both would see only a part of the voltage.

Is there a button cell about that size (3/16"x1/16" approximately) that would deliver 3 volts at at least 10 mA?

I already have a shopping cart loaded with some 3/16" dia. x 3/32" N42 discs, I have the same sort of wheel he used, and I already have some 1/2" N42s I can use for a trigger. If I build one,it will be only a spinning wheel, with no motor or wires whatsoever. Now I have a question for you, buddhasystem:

IF I build one of these, and video a short test, will you accept my test of it, regardless of result?

TheRedneck