The Steorn magnetic motor replication by JL Naudin

Originally posted by buddhasystemI learned physics using textbooks, not "mags".

There is something else going on, and your physics texts are out of date. By about, say, a hundred years. Definitely 63 years. In regard to electromagnetic theory. With no small fault to the west, thank you very much IEE and IEEE.

But just because these folks don't share the same command of the erudite background you have doesn't mean they are all charlatans or whacked ignoramuses. Some and a few more, but not all. There are anomalies, and they have to be explored, and this is the role of the scientist.

Books don't write the world, the world writes them.

Oh, btw, I have acquired a paper which experimentally proves the speed of light is not constant. How about them apples?

Fodder for another thread. Light is electromagnetic though, and is related in this manner when we begin discussing wave mechanics.

reply to post by Matyas

There are anomalies, and they have to be explored, and this is the role of the scientist.

This is, indeed, the reason the scientist exists.

I learned physics form textbooks as well, but there are simply things the textbooks cannot (or at least do not) answer. There are anomalies, and just like Einstein discovered Newton's Laws were incomplete, so is any physical law subject to a discovery that it as well is incomplete.

That is the main difference between myself and buddhasystem. We both appear to have an extensive background in the physical sciences, and indeed, we agree quite often. We agreed in the beginning of this thread. Yet I tend to see things that science says do not happen,and that makes me question the science... not that it is 'wrong' per se, no more than Newton's Laws are not 'wrong'... but that they may be yet incomplete and subject to considerations we are not aware of.

I respect buddhasystem for his knowledge. I value his opinions on physical matters, I only wish his eyes were open to the possibilities that physics allows.

BTW, the speed of light is not a constant, except in a constant gravitational field. But it's close, at least in our little corner of the Universe.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by Matyas

Oh, btw, I have acquired a paper which experimentally proves the speed of light is not constant.

as no one said it was constant, what are you on about? It has always known to vary

reply to post by dereks

Albert Einstein is no one? The constant value of the speed of light is the very basis of Relativity.

TheRedneck

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

My guess is yes. I was shopping for batteries some time ago and there were definitely 3V units, fairly small, I just don't remember the exact spec. And 10mA shouldn't be a problem for any battery, especially if you don't care much about how long it will last. And... Yes, the motor and the bulb can be in series. I really think there is more than enough space to conceal both reed switch and a small battery or two, in that gadget.

reply to post by buddhasystem

I appreciate the input. I absolutely despise button cells... they put out precious little power, they are outrageously expensive, there must be hundreds of different sizes, and every time I get something that uses the little boogers, I either can't find a new battery locally when I need one or I lose the cover plate (while searching for a replacement battery).

Anyway, that's my rant on batteries...

Now, seeing as the only way to really know the truth is to make one, what say you to my question? Will you accept my findings?

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Now, seeing as the only way to really know the truth is to make one, what say you to my question? Will you accept my findings?

Sure. I'm just not sure what are you building -- the "real" free energy BS machine, or the one with reed switch and batteries

reply to post by buddhasystem

Well, I was thinking I would replicate the wheel itself, with no motor. I can mount it on an input shaft (I have plenty of nylon round here) that can spin in bearings. If that works, I can attach the shaft to a similar motor and try to replicate the entire arrangement (without any battery or reed switch, of course).

If you want, I have plenty of LEDs and should have a couple of reed switches just lying around.

To be honest, I don't expect it to work either. But science is not about proving what one believes; it is about proving what is and is not true, and allowing the beliefs to follow the experiments.

My cost is going to be less than $20 for this, and who knows? Even if it fails, I may discover something I had not noticed before.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
But science is not about proving what one believes; it is about proving what is and is not true, and allowing the beliefs to follow the experiments.

Whatever floats your boat... The way I see it, conservation of energy was seen to a much higher precision in the lab than you will ever able to achieve in your shop. It's like you are trying to cook a Thai meal using potatoes and black pepper only. Sure you can make it spicy...

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

please also consider the posibilty of fraud - using conudctive polymer resin " tracks "

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

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

please also consider the posibilty of fraud - using conudctive polymer resin " tracks "

That occurred to me, too, but then this dude would have to ruin his coffee table (drill holes in it).

Originally posted by TheRedneckEven if it fails, I may discover something I had not noticed before.

Or see something between black and white BS machines are incapable of. I applaud your effort, no matter how feeble it may seem to you or any one else.

reply to post by ignorant_ape

I doubt he used anything so high-tech. I am actually wondering why he would go so far as to present a fraud anyway, even one so simple as sticking a button cell in line and adding a reed switch. What has he to gain? His name is not on the video; there is not even a request for financial assistance... so what's his game?

Thus, if I build one (and like I said, it's one afternoon and a few bucks parts that I can probably re-use), we know for a fact whether he has something we are not seeing or not.

Does it not beat standing around discussing theory?

Anyway, I managed to get this silly hunk of dirty silicon back up and running, so it's off to town before the snow starts... in ALA-FREAKIN-BAMA... see you guys later.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by MajorDisaster

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?

Can we see the independent third party testing results for the Bedini device? Or must we just take his word for it?

reply to post by FatherLukeDuke


Why do you think I keep advocating a field investigation, FLD?

So we can see a third-party testing being done and examine the data it produces!

Re: third party testing of Bedini motors

Dr. Peter Lindemann claims to have spent a lot of time with Bedini and successfully replicated his results:

Last year, I rebuilt my motor with 3 smaller discs. This gave me an opportunity to test a number of other parameters. I have never reported these test results to anyone but John, until now.

With magnets on either side of the coil, I could make the machine act more like a generator, or more like a motor, or more like a transformer, depending on the set-up. After exhaustive tests, here are the results:

1. When the machine is configured to function as a generator, it slows down when delivering power, it charges the capacitor poorly, and it draws more power from the source battery.
2. When the machine is configured to function as a transformer, again, it slows down when delivering power, charges the capacitor to the voltage set by the windings ratio, and draws more power from the source battery.
3. But, when both the transformer action and generator action are suppressed, the motor torque is maximized, the speed is maximized, the input power is minimized, and the capacitor charges quickly to voltages up to 30 times the input voltage on a one-to-one windings ratio.

John was always friendly and patient as I made every mistake imaginable. When I was done, what worked is what John had said in the first place! I learned over the years of experimentation that John and I were in general agreement about the theoretical behavior of the energy, but that John was LIGHT-YEARS beyond me in understanding how to engineer machines and circuits that actually made the theory WORK!

Tesla’s US Patent #695,958 clearly shows radiant energy circuits designed to run INDUCTIVE loads. Gray’s US Patent #4,595,975 shows radiant energy, again, driving INDUCTIVE loads. John Bedini has now moved the science of radiant energy one step farther by discovering how radiant energy can be captured in CHEMICAL loads, such as the electrolyte of a battery!

When radiant energy is properly applied to a battery electrolyte, the battery undergoes a series of changes that restores its potential AND lowers its internal impedance. This restores the battery to the condition generally referred to as "charged." What is so astonishing is that it does this without the need to force the electrons from the positive plate back to the negative plate through an external circuit. Using John’s simple, patented inductively coupled radiant oscillators, and his patented switching techniques, the amount of electricity it takes to produce the radiant energy is very low, and the effect of the radiant energy on the receiving battery is very high. The source battery and the secondary battery being charged are NEVER directly connected to each other. There is no "closed loop!"

John and I have run tests with prototype, solid-state, radiant chargers that draw ONE WATT (12 volts @ 80ma) from the source battery and can charge a 7 amp-hour gel-cell battery from 10.5 volts (fully discharged) up to 14 volts in under one hour (3600 joules). This newly charged battery is then discharged by being connected to a sine-wave inverter and running a 100 watt light bulb for 40 minutes (240,000 joules). After discharge, it can be charged back to full again by the one watt charger in about an hour. The COP of the system is very high. The apparent efficiency of this test is COP>60! Even John and I question the math when it is this high. Never the less, we have run dozens of these tests with the COP>20. Different batteries behave differently with different charger configurations.

I have witnessed scores of tests that demonstrate COP>1 systems that were designed and built by John. I have independently re-run dozens of these tests back at my home with my own test models. John’s systems work, it’s as simple as that.

www.icehouse.net...

Originally posted by MajorDisaster

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?

I did this as paid work for a company and also several individuals. I am under NDA with all parties so cannot make copies of results available even if I could find them now. I think I have tested just about every popular 'OU' device in existance around 10 years ago. I see that many of these inventors are still peddling their designs though.

Nothing was filmed - I didn't offer and it was never requested. I visited their site with my equipment, performed my tests, produced a report and gave them my invoice. I used to offer to waive my fees if the device was OU That got me a lot of work.

Steorn have stated that JL Naudin;s "replication" of their Orbo "Our engineers went through the JLN 'replication' today - both the information on his website and the his youtube channel.

We have to advise that this is in no way a valid replication of Orbo. It is very clear to us that the arrangement that he has set up has a significant amount of [Counter]EMF in the system. While not quite a normal pulse motor, it certainly is not Orbo and is almost certainly not OU"
pesn.com...

So another snake oil salesman bites the dust!

reply to post by LightFantastic


So what you are telling us is that you did all this testing, but have nothing to show for it. No data, no documents, no footage, nothing. Absolutely zero evidence or proof of your claims.

Isn't that what people usually accuse the inventors of?

reply to post by dereks




"Ack, how dare he replicate our moter without askin us and put all the infermation up on his site fer free!"