The Steorn magnetic motor replication by JL Naudin

reply to post by buddhasystem


How about at 1:15 where is doesn't exsist... or Steorns square scope trace showing no back EMF where Lenz's Law states there must be one.

Ahhhh that's it... Lenz's law!~ If you had stated it was Lenz I would have so continued this pointless conversation with you... I gave you the chance!~ Maybe another time.

Originally posted by Matyas
It seems to me you have set the limits of the Universe and exist in a box. Are you afraid of being found dead when it is opened? It is the way you always have been. Oh boy indeed. I think the world would change if you changed your mind.

Ahh, the joy of arguing with a brick wall!

Originally posted by djcubed
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

How about at 1:15 where is doesn't exsist... or Steorns square scope trace showing no back EMF where Lenz's Law states there must be one.

In the second video when the coil is switched off the back emf can be seen as a decaying narrow sinusoid. Steorn said this was because of the switch but to me it looks exactly like back emf quenched by a snubber network.

On the other hand, the waveforms don't look like a fairly large inductor being driven with a low DC voltage either.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Across a coil, a square wave pulse should show a current which is the differential of a square wave at least. The current flow would follow a tangential curve from zero to maximum. The voltage, if the power supply was strong enough to handle it, could show a square wave pulse, but at the end the voltage would swing back negative. This is the back EMF that is being discussed. It does not show this, even on the traditional coil arrangement.

Quite correct, the V decay and I ramp after power is applied and when is it taken away don't look right as I mentioned above. Again as I posted above you can see the back emf from the coil de-energisation as the sinusoid which is what you would expect from a snubber.

Steorn don't show the circuit or where they have the test instruments connected so it is difficult to make a solid judgement as to what we are seeing on the scope in all their demos.

It looks to me like low inductance coil at a slow timebase.


[edit on 15/1/2010 by LightFantastic]

I feel what would seal this is calculate how long the system could run based upon a power decay of the battery.

Then run the Orbo longer than that calculation. This would quench any argument I feel.

All the best,

Korg.

no back EMF ?

i will state again - watch the " device " , NOT thier instruments

when the device stops - the rotor ` twitches ` as the magnet passes the winding - and rocks before stalling

that IS back emf - the magnet and windinfs are clearly interacting

so is the instrumentation wired incorectly due to :

a - incompetance

b - fraud

well ???????????

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
so is the instrumentation wired incorectly due to :

a - incompetance

b - fraud

well ???????????

Let me break this down.

Is the instrumentation wired incorrectly? This is a bit like trying to guess what colour someone’s underwear is... Have a guess... but don't say for definite or the chances are you will be wrong more than right.

A- Incompetence.... Since you have not established that the instrumentation is in fact wired incorrectly you cannot claim incompetence.

B- Fraud requires some gain; I can't see Steorn gaining anything other than notoriety which is not exactly a positive thing is it?

Peace out,

Korg,

Originally posted by djcubed
How to eliminate CEMF in an orbo style motor... NOT A HOAX...

JLN has both polarity magnets on the rotor - north at the top and south at the bottom so it isn't surprising he didn't get much induced current when the coil was centred between them.

reply to post by ignorant_ape


To me, that twitching looks like the magnet interacting with the ferromagnetic core of the coil which has a large enough airgap to prevent the rotor locking in that position.

All this fuss about back EMF which is simply induction at work when a magnetic field intersects a conductor but back EMF in itself does not impede motion unless it can establish a current in opposition to the supply polarity.

There is a tendency in solid ferromagnetic cores for back EMF to produce such opposing eddy currents but that problem is minimised greatly by simply using laminated cores to reduce the cross-section of material that can support such eddy currents.

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
A- Incompetence.... Since you have not established that the instrumentation is in fact wired incorrectly you cannot claim incompetence.

B- Fraud requires some gain; I can't see Steorn gaining anything other than notoriety which is not exactly a positive thing is it?

Like many OU inventors I think Steorn think they are on to something and are only a little step away from having a OU system so fraud may be too strong a word.

However it also appears that their instrumentation isn't connected to show what needs to be measured either.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by ignorant_ape

 

To me, that twitching looks like the magnet interacting with the ferromagnetic core of the coil which has a large enough airgap to prevent the rotor locking in that position.

All this fuss about back EMF which is simply induction at work when a magnetic field intersects a conductor but back EMF in itself does not impede motion unless it can establish a current in opposition to the supply polarity.

I think you hit the nail on the head there.

JLN obviously reads this forum as he seems to have noticed my post about the flywheel diode in his MOSFET (JLN)

At least JLN is now showing the back EMF from turning his coil off, producing a negative voltage spike as expected. I guess Steorn are using a bipolar switch with a snubber rather than a MOSFET with a flywheel diode.

The way this motor works is as you say: The magnets are attracted to the ferrite. When approaching the ferrite the current is turned on, saturating the ferrite allowing the magnet to coast past. The toroid will have very little magnetic field outside the windings so the rotor/stator attraction is not a field to field interaction, rather a 'gated' ferromagnetic attraction.

The torque from this sort of motor will be very low as it requires a large air gap or weaker magnets to avoid locking. It also doesn't increase its power in response to a mechanical load to make it a useful motor.

Because the motor doesn't increase its power when loaded this can lead the designers to think they have an OU system, which I'm pretty sure they don't. They have a fixed output power motor that is under unity.

Also, the fact that the inductance of the coil changes in the presence of the magnet is hardly surprising either.




[edit on 15/1/2010 by LightFantastic]

[edit on 15/1/2010 by LightFantastic]

Originally posted by djcubed
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

How about at 1:15 where is doesn't exsist... or Steorns square scope trace showing no back EMF where Lenz's Law states there must be one.

Ahhhh that's it... Lenz's law!~ If you had stated it was Lenz I would have so continued this pointless conversation with you... I gave you the chance!~ Maybe another time.

I don't need any chances from you, buddy, really. This is hilarious -- Len'z law is tied to conservation of energy, which Steorn claims to violate, and you try to use Lenz's law to support Steorn? Schizophrenia is a terrible thing.

reply to post by LightFantastic


The torque is definitely extremely low just going on the rate of acceleration with no load at all and the huge airgaps involved means flux density is very weak and consequently back EMF generation is also very small.

Here's a super simplified motor circuit for consideration - it can be any motor and the diode can be either a semiconductor junction or the channel of a MOSFET in which case consider it 'on' when the motor is running and 'off' or high impedance when the switch is opened.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2d9019a8807b.jpg[/atsimg]

Let's say the motor is allowed to come up to speed and the switch is then opened:

What voltage would we read on the voltmeter?
Does it confirm or deny the existance of a back-EMF?

reply to post by buddhasystem


Steorn does not claim they break this law... you again are just making things up to post on this thread. I would take a look at the posts above to learn how to debate. Which involves bringing FACTs to the table.

If you wont believe anything that Steorn shows you because you veiw it all as a magic trick... I would stop looking at this thread dedicated to them.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Let's say the motor is allowed to come up to speed and the switch is then opened:

What voltage would we read on the voltmeter?
Does it confirm or deny the existance of a back-EMF?

I think you should place an advert in the Telegraph to proclaim your zero back-emf motor design



[edit on 15/1/2010 by LightFantastic]

Originally posted by djcubed
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Steorn does not claim they break this law... you again are just making things up to post on this thread.

Did you even bother to look at the demonstration video?

a) He says repeatedly it's an overunity device -- which means it produces more energy than it consumes, meaning breaking the law

b) in part 4, you see a poster on the wall stating same. It says in plain English that the law of conservation of energy is violated in this device. You can't use a law like Lenz's law to argue that Lenz's law is violated. Unless you are a nutjob.

Now, who has the facts?

Got you.

Did you even bother to look at the demonstration video?

a) He says repeatedly it's an overunity device -- which means it produces more energy than it consumes, meaning breaking the law

b) in part 4, you see a poster on the wall stating same. It says in plain English that the law of conservation of energy is violated in this device. You can't use a law like Lenz's law to argue that Lenz's law is violated. Unless you are a nutjob.

Now, who has the facts?

Got you.

This isn't a game of tag... so getting me doesn't win you a prize. Lenz law is not the the same as the law of conservation... So I'm not sure what you are arguing... But let me state this to make it more clear...

THIS DEVICE DOESN'T CREATE ENERGY FROM NOTHING... ALL ENERGY COMES FROM SOMEWHERE...

This device... as shown... if proven... defies both Lenz law and the law of conservation 'as they are written' because they were not written to include everything in this universe and use a limited model of what we now know.

You are still derailing the topic of their second experiment... but I'm just going to stop trying to spell out what happened in this one now and wait for the next one.

Most ATS members on this forum that know what they are talking about see something that doesn't look right in their recent experiments. And I really don't see them going through all of this trouble to fake traces and such if in the end they are going to be caught out. It makes no sense to me.

If ANYONE can truly debunk this experiment, I would love to see there experiment showing that back emf does exist in an Orbo system... seeing as how 2 independent testers have found that CEMF is eliminated in their test rigs. JLN and TinselKoala Orbette #18 Video.

Until then I will believe the ones showing us their experiment... Even if their is a hidden man behind a curtain... I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Originally posted by djcubed
... so getting me doesn't win you a prize.

I know, it's too easy!

Lenz law is not the the same as the law of conservation... So I'm not sure what you are arguing...

Use Google and you just might find out.

If ANYONE can truly debunk this experiment, I would love to see there experiment showing that back emf does exist in an Orbo system...

The "back EMF" is getting old. If the device gives off more energy than it consumes, it MUST be trivial to have it run for months at a time. Since this ain't happening... I don't feel like going on.

reply to post by djcubed


I appreciate that you're giving them the benefit of the doubt, as I tend to do that too. But what they really need is a WOW factor here. Show us a motor lighting up a bank of light bulbs or powering a car or something.

What they have demonstrated so far just isn't that exciting, especially to dummies like me who don't have a background in electronics

reply to post by MajorDisaster


I understand this... however Steorn is not beating around the bush and have a timeline they are following... with the less significant experiments first leading up to the final and most interesting ones proving their claim of over unity. They have ALWAYS claimed this. They are doing this so as to ease people into what they are showing them... because get this... PEOPLE DON'T EXCEPT WHAT THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND... some recent posts on this thread prove this.

Now this means we have to follow along with them, not jump to conclusions, and look at the experiments they show us one at a time, and debunk what they are showing.

Until someone can do that, and I am following all experiments online working on this, than I will believe them. All outside experiments not done by Steorn on their own test rigs have not yet debunked any of Steorn's claims... so I don't understand what is so difficult to grasp here.

Steorn makes a claim, independent testers come to the same conclusion on their own. No one has yet to debunk their system.

If this was a game it would be Steorn 1 - Debunkers - 0