It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# The Steorn magnetic motor replication by JL Naudin

page: 2
46
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:08 AM

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

ok - as you claim that they have been " prooved " , please define for us EXACTLY what the following word salad means :

` polarity independant rotation `

` lack of reverse EMF `

I assume by polarity independent rotation he means that the rotor spins in the same direction regardless of the polarity of the electromagnet used. This in itself isn't proof of anything, since AC motors have been used for over a hundred years.

As for reverse EMF, basically all motors produce an electromagnetic field that directly opposes the rotation of the motor, thus slowing it down. The claim is that this motor doesn't have that.

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:06 AM
If this turns out to be real, someone will suddenly "find" a previous patent and then bury it deep in gov legal bs.

The only way it would ever come to us is if the inventor puts the plans for it out on the web in many places and it goes viral. He wont make any money from it that way...but he would become a historic figure.

Edit: Can't watch the videos...dial-up...sigh

[edit on 29-12-2009 by SheaWolf]

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:09 AM

Originally posted by die_another_day
First of all, this isn't about free energy, it's about efficiency of motors.

He's using a "pulsating direct current" which basically turns the dc on and off (or changes the amount of current) at high frequencies. He has it at around 100hz.

It creates the same result as an alternating current induced rotation.

AC has some back emf.

Pulsating DC still has some in my opinion. I'm not sure what he's doing that makes cemf 0.

Assuming that cemf is 0, the maximum RPM is causing by the DC induced force and the counter friction force from the bearings. If anything is connected to harness the energy the motor, the motor will decelerate, forcing increased power into the motor to maintain the RPM.

BASICALLY:

Cemf is like friction, if you can reduce it, you get greater efficiency.

[edit on 12/29/2009 by die_another_day]

No, it IS about free energy. It is the back EMF that contains that extra burst of energy that Tesla and Bedini talked a great deal about. This is not just about the gains realized by removing the back EMF, but also about the additional energy that is realized in the circuit when the back EMF triggers more energy to be pulled out of the cosmic vacuum.

It would be interesting for you to study the work of Bedini, Bearden, and of course Tesla, as it is quite apparent that this is all part of what the Steorn motor is taping into. These guys at Steorn may not even be aware of all these others people that have tapped into the same thing.

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:15 AM

Originally posted by Grey Magic

If this tech was true, why is nobody stopping this danger for profits?

Because it isn't true.

OOORRR
how about it IS true but an awfully good diversion from the REALLY good stuff that's been kept under wraps since before the 50's.

It's an even BETTER diversion for TPTB to rely on your intense skepticism to play a large hurdle to the already slow involvement of people to promote this tech... How easy is it for them to let you fester within the minds of others that "this is all baloney"

The internet is a powerful place and it's why there is an ad at the top of this site trying to keep it free and open. Steorn had an inet demonstration and word got around fast. Word gets around so fast now that killing everyone who has a free energy device coming out would get rather messy.. so let the small fries tech get out and keep the good stuff hidden for a little while longer until even BETTER stuff is found.

makes simple sense to me

b

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:24 AM

Originally posted by downisreallyup
This is not just about the gains realized by removing the back EMF, but also about the additional energy that is realized in the circuit when the back EMF triggers more energy to be pulled out of the cosmic vacuum.

What you wrote makes no sense at all electrically...

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:48 AM
This is a load of crap! Over unity is not possible! These folks are crooks and liars.

With no friction you could spin an object and expect it to spin forever, you could not expect to produce energy beyond that which was applied in the first place though. Even in a closed circuit lenz’s law would apply (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz's_law ) and more than negate any gain you might expect to achieve. It’s a sad day that a post like this would find its way to the front page of abovetopsecret!

Don’t ever fall for this bull#! If any of you did a little reading, and or a little experimenting you would quickly see why this is impossible. I suspect these guys have a 5th-6th grade education.

Never give these guys your money!!

The only thing that may operate at over unity is the Universe itself, and that’s a big maybe.

You unlock the secrets of creation and you will have unlocked over unity, but if the universe is infinitely old then it never needed a starting point/creation in which case it operates at unity.

You can only convert energy from one form to another. You cannot produce energy from nothing!

[edit on 29-12-2009 by Donkey_Dean]

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:58 AM
Hang on doesn't the appied voltage across an inductive machine minus the back E.M.F (in volts) equal the actual voltage drop across the machine?

Less back E.M.F.= more voltage drop therefore more power consumed.

Wouldn't we want back E.M.F. to EXCEED applied E.M.F. for over unity?

If a motor didn't have any back E.M.F. it's power consumption would be huge, we get a taste of this on startup and in locked rotor situations.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by OZtracized]

[edit on 29-12-2009 by OZtracized]

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 03:48 AM
As always there is many wires on that video and we don't see where some of them goes. Highly probable fake. In my opinion this probability is about 95%. I could see wires which goose somewhere outside the frame to the battery probably.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by odyseusz]

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 03:49 AM

hi - thanks for trying

however i am familiar with lenz`s law and the way a moving magnet and a static conductor will create " friction" even if the conductor is NOT part of a circuit

i guess i should have been more specific and demanded explaination of exactly HOW this force was eliminated

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 04:24 AM

Originally posted by OZtracized
Hang on doesn't the appied voltage across an inductive machine minus the back E.M.F (in volts) equal the actual voltage drop across the machine?

Less back E.M.F.= more voltage drop therefore more power consumed.

Wouldn't we want back E.M.F. to EXCEED applied E.M.F. for over unity?

If a motor didn't have any back E.M.F. it's power consumption would be huge, we get a taste of this on startup and in locked rotor situations.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by OZtracized]

[edit on 29-12-2009 by OZtracized]

Agree, I initially thought this is what they were doing at Steorn i.e. converting the net back EMF to something useful whether as power being fed back into the 'loop' or as an inducer for the mechnaical motion otherwise there is no cap on the input requirements.

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 04:34 AM
It would be intereting to see how this develops if coupled with the "programable magnets" or "frictionless magnetic gears" idea anounced last month ( see www.popularmechanics.com... )

[edit on 29-12-2009 by Did you see them]

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:28 AM

Exactly right

Without back EMF the motor's input current would only be limited by the static impedance of the circuit IE startup or 'locked rotor current' as you said. Rising back EMF (a function of speed) is the reason a conventional electric motor's input current is the least at rated speed and no load where the power expended in overcoming copper loss, iron loss, bearing + gearbox friction and windage is perfectly represented by the product of input current and the difference between applied terminal EMF and back EMF. Loading the motor increases the difference between back EMF and applied EMF with a consequent rise in input current (I = (Et-Eb)/Z and P = I^2.Z)

What's presented fails to give me goosebumps

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:41 AM
I see this is not a science forum. People ought to educate their selves slightly more before posting. Whether it's real or not, build it yourself and see for yourselves. There are quite some forums that are already doing this with a lot of success. The electrical inductive energy can be recovered while the kinetic energy seemingly came out of thin air. Nature doesn't abide man made laws, man does that. Be open minded and you will discover things you never thought were possible.

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 06:01 AM
I dont know anything about physics or electronics (yet) so i need someone who does to answer this.

Looking at the schematics. Would this be something that you could build at home easily?

Are the components needed easy to lay your hands on?

Does'nt look to complicated compared to some schematic drawings i've seen. So i might try it for myself. Why not eh?

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 06:02 AM

Originally posted by broli
while the kinetic energy seemingly came out of thin air.

No, it comes from the battery!

That is why it needs a battery, that they keep replacing

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 06:31 AM

It's a simple arrangement that looks to have much in common with the Bedini machine. The electronics are quite simple and uncomplicated but the actual mechanical geometry will take a lot of tinkering to get it just right.

Looks like a very simple low power brushless motor which explains the low power consumption. What it has in common with other such 'wonder devices' is the horrendously inefficient magnetic arrangement with huge airgaps and no magnetic circuit whatsoever guaranteeing ultra-low performance. A conventional well designed brushless DC motor of equivalent physical size would tear your arm off almost.

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 07:29 AM

To answer your question, Pilgrim clearly knows more about the theory than I and this is what I do for a living.

Two qualified persons saying that the maths DOES NOT add up.

If you want to build it at home, go for it. I suspect that you'll "never get it quite right". A well designed D.C. motor (with high efficiency) with an armature of that radius would spin at a vey high R.P.M. and likely fly apart. It looks like a simple, low consumption (but low EFFICIENCY) motor.

I don't blame anyone at all for buying this because, at a glance, it sounds very reasonable.

In this case, there is no need to bring the laws of thermodynamics into the argument, thoroughly demonstrated electrical principals quickly throw a huge question mark over what is being presented.

A motor with zero losses (iron/hysteresis, copper/resistance and friction/heat) would have a back E.M.F. equal to applied E.M.F. and therefore "break even".

Back E.M.F. is not a loss, it is simply the equal and opposite force (minus losses), very much like inertia.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by OZtracized]

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 08:10 AM

No it didn't. The energy from the battery can be recovered back or at least most of it. If you want a scientific debate about this lets have it, don't just assume things with your only reason being "but but but energy can't be created". It has already been proven by numerous people that there is no induced EMF due to the motion of the magnet. Further more some said perhaps the emf was only induced when current was present, this was also proven by adding a pickup coil in run mode, again no induced EMF was present. Do you know what this even means? The coil and its inductance remain constant in time! Whether there's a magnet flying by or not. If you make your inductance high enough so the current doesn't hit the ohmic limit you will mostly work with inductive energy which can be recovered back easily.

As for the people asking how hard this is to replicate. If you have do not have much tools at home it will take some time to get it running, as you will need a rotating wheel stand, some glue, lots of wire and the toroidal cores.

I think people online will close the loop before Steorn will hold its talk about how much energy is being put out and put in.

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 08:34 AM

Originally posted by dereks
What you wrote makes no sense at all electrically...

Okay, I'll take a shot at this.

Bedini and Bearden explain all this stuff better than anyone else I've seen, you really should watch the "Energy from the Vacuum" series if you haven't already.

There is a different form of energy which Bedini calls "Radiant Energy" or "Negative Energy", which comes from the vacuum. Most electrical engineers aren't aware that this energy exists so none of our conventional motors, generators or electrical circuits are designed to make use of it.

Bedini says that a battery is the absolute best thing he's ever found to transform this Radiant energy into the standard current that's used in all our circuits.

So you have magnets passing by coils, a ridiculous amount of Radiant energy comes in from the vacuum, you then siphon it off to a battery (or batterIES), the battery transforms the Radiant energy into standard current, which you can then use to turn the wheel some more, which then draws in more Radiant energy, and so on and so on.

That's why the battery is necessary, it's what converts the Radiant/Vacuum energy into a useable form.

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 08:41 AM

Originally posted by jimmyx
how does having a battery attached in the schematics upper right hand corner make this a free energy device?

I was looking at the Battery at the top as well. I think that it is used for biasing (turning on) the transistors, since they would not operate with ac current.

I think a good test would be to put the device under a load to see if it can hold up.

BTW... Be gentle, newb here! Happy New Year!

Submarines sends...

new topics

top topics

46